Recently, the Dubai laboratory encountered four stones submitted for update services inscribed with fraudulent GIA report numbers. Inconsistent font styles and placement indicated the numbers were not authentic GIA inscriptions.
Table 1. Comparison of characteristics of submissions with counterfeit inscriptions and their accompanying GIA grading reports. A careful comparison of their quality characteristics confirmed that these were not the same diamonds as described in their accompanying reports. Although the diamonds were carefully selected to closely match the features listed on the original reports, several subtle differences in their color grades, measurements, and other characteristics were identified (table 1). Even more obvious were the spectral differences between the fraudulent and original stones. The difference in the one-phonon region of the Fourier-transform infrared absorption spectroscopy clearly revealed a discrepancy in the diamond types. The diamonds from the original reports were type Ia with aggregated nitrogen impurities, while these submitted stones were all type IIa, confirming they were, in fact, different stones.
On fraudulent diamonds 1 and 2, photoluminescence (PL) spectra produced by 514 nm laser excitation at liquid-nitrogen temperature showed that 637 nm peaks were greater than 575 nm peaks. The 575 and 637 nm peaks are emissions from the nitrogen vacancy center in its neutral [NV]0 and negative [NV]− charge states, respectively. The 575:637 nm emission ratio of intensities of less than 1 (D. Fisher and R.A. Spits, “Spectroscopic evidence of GE POL HPHT-treated natural type IIa diamonds,” Spring 2000 G&G, pp. 42–49), along with other PL features, indicated that fraudulent diamonds 1 and 2 with the counterfeit inscriptions were natural diamonds that had undergone high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) treatment for color improvements.
The visible/near-infrared (Vis-NIR) absorption spectrum for fraudulent diamond 3, on the other hand, showed a 737 nm peak, which corresponds to the unresolved silicon vacancy [SiV]– defect at 736.6/736.9 nm commonly seen in laboratory-grown diamonds using the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) growth method (P. Martineau et al., “Identification of synthetic diamond grown using chemical vapor deposition (CVD),” Spring 2004 G&G, pp. 2–25). The observation of such features led to the determination that this stone was CVD-grown and subjected to post-grown HPHT processing.
Further PL spectroscopy analysis on fraudulent diamonds 3 and 4 using 633 nm excitation confirmed the presence of the SiV– doublet feature on both diamonds. In alignment with the Vis-NIR and PL spectra, DiamondView images of these two fraudulent stones displayed clear striations with interruption layers indicative of CVD growth (figure 1). These patterns are consistent with the step-flow growth structure of CVD-grown diamond, which was also visible under the microscope using crossed polarizers and further supported their laboratory-grown origins. The other two fraudulent diamonds (1 and 2), however, showed a lack of such patterns and demonstrated natural-looking features, which confirmed them as HPHT-processed natural diamonds.
Figure 2. GIA’s standard procedure is to cross out the counterfeit inscription. Image by GIA staff. Figure 2. GIA’s standard procedure is to cross out the counterfeit inscription. Image by GIA staff. Considering all evidence, we concluded that two of the four stones were laboratory-grown diamonds, and the other two were HPHT-processed natural diamonds. All four diamonds were not the same natural diamonds as described in their accompanying GIA grading reports. In accordance with GIA procedures, the counterfeit inscriptions were crossed out (figure 2) and new report numbers were assigned. In addition, GIA inscribes “TREATED COLOR” on natural diamonds with post-treatment history and “LABORATORY-GROWN” along with a GIA report number and distinct GIA LG logo on laboratory-grown diamonds.
Deceptive practices have occurred previously in the trade; similar instances of diamonds with fraudulent inscriptions have been reported by GIA (e.g., Summer 2021 Lab Notes, pp. 150–152; Fall 2021 Lab Notes, pp. 258–259). Additionally, non-diamond materials, such as synthetic moissanite, with fraudulent GIA inscriptions have been submitted as diamonds to GIA (Fall 2020 Lab Notes, pp. 424–425; Fall 2022 Lab Notes, pp. 360–361). These cases highlight the importance of verifying inscription authenticity because a fraudulent inscription could be overlooked by simple visual examination. One possible solution is GIA’s Match iD, a device that compares a diamond’s inscription with its grading report in the GIA database.
GIA says the switch to grading lab grown diamonds simply as “premium” or “standard” will take on 1 October.
The lab announced an end to full 4Cs color and clarity reports in June, but did not say at the time when the change would take effect.
In a statement yesterday (26 August) it also laid out the criteria it will use to distinguish Premium lab growns from Standard. Diamond that don’t meet all the minimum criteria for Standard will not receive a GIA assessment.
Cut grade – Very Good (round brilliant cut diamonds only)
GIA will charge $15 per carat, with a minimum fee of $15. Evaluation fee for diamonds below the minimum criteria is $15.
“Using descriptive terms for the quality of laboratory-grown diamonds is appropriate as most fall into a very narrow range of color and clarity,” said Pritesh Patel, GIA president and CEO.
“Because of that, GIA will no longer use the nomenclature created for natural diamonds to describe what is a manufactured product.”
Meanwhile rival lab IGI (International Gemological Institute) insists it will carry on with 4Cs grading for lab growns “to prevent industry and consumer confusion”.
In the diamond trade, we often speak of a laser inscription as if it is an unbreakable bond between a diamond and its grading certificate. However, anyone with real-world experience whether on the manufacturing floor or in the secondary market knows the truth: inscriptions can be removed, altered, or forged.
Polish the girdle and the inscription disappears. Re-cut the stone and it’s gone entirely. Worse still, an inscription can be duplicated onto a different diamond to mimic an existing report number. This is not speculation; it has happened, and more often than many in the trade care to admit.
Another serious vulnerability occurs after grading. Once a diamond is set into jewellery, nothing prevents a switch from taking place during setting, repair, or even in transit. This risk is not confined to smaller stones high-value diamonds have been switched in exactly this way.
Verification presents its own challenges. Even if the diamond is the original stone graded by the laboratory, the inscription is frequently obscured by the jewellery setting. Accessing it often requires removing the stone a delicate procedure that carries risk to both the stone and the setting. Most grading laboratories, including DCLA, will not remove diamonds from their mountings, and many jewellers are reluctant to attempt it due to the potential for irreversible damage.
Digital records, blockchain entries, and grading reports track the details, but they do not track the actual physical stone. If the diamond is switched but the paperwork remains unchanged, the system still appears to validate it as authentic. This is precisely how sophisticated fraud can go undetected.
Until the industry bridges the gap between the physical diamond and its digital record, laser inscriptions will remain a weak link in the chain of security.
At DCLA, we believe the next step in true physical traceability lies in combining advanced identification technology with secure, tamper-proof verification processes ensuring that a diamond’s identity is as enduring as the stone itself.
The Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia (DCLA) reaffirms its commitment to providing precise and comprehensive grading for all diamonds, including laboratory-grown stones. This approach ensures consistency, transparency, and informed decision-making across the industry.
While the GIA has announced it will introduce a simplified classification system for lab-grown diamonds — using the categories “Premium” and “Standard” — the DCLA will maintain its tradition of detailed grading across the full range of quality characteristics. This includes reporting actual colour, clarity, cut, and carat weight for every diamond submitted, regardless of its origin.
The GIA’s new system, expected later this year, will group lab-grown diamonds based on overall appearance and finish, with certificates including carat and cut details but without specific colour and clarity grades.
DCLA recognises that both natural and laboratory-grown diamonds hold unique value and significance. By continuing to offer full grading reports, the DCLA supports both the trade and consumers in understanding and appreciating the distinct qualities of each stone.
At DCLA, we believe that consumers and the trade deserve full and detailed grading information, regardless of the diamond’s origin. Misrepresentation and confusion are more likely to arise when simplified or vague grading systems are used — especially as laboratory-grown diamonds become more prevalent in the market.
As Australia’s official CIBJO laboratory, DCLA remains dedicated to upholding the highest international standards in diamond certification and grading.
Monday, 2 June 2025
GIA Moves to Redefine Lab-Grown Diamond Grading, Signaling Clearer Divide from Natural Diamonds
In a landmark decision that will reverberate through the global diamond industry, the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) the world’s foremost authority in gemology—has announced it will no longer use its internationally recognized 4Cs grading system for laboratory-grown diamonds. Instead, beginning later this year, lab-grown diamonds submitted to GIA will receive simplified descriptors—categorized broadly as either “premium” or “standard”—or no grade at all if the quality is subpar.
While GIA’s move to redefine lab grown diamond grading might sound like a simple nomenclature change, it’s much more than that. This move marks a definitive moment in the ongoing separation of natural diamonds from lab-grown diamonds. It confirms what many in the industry have long known: lab-grown diamonds are not the same as natural diamonds and should not be treated as such.
Why the 4Cs Is Essential for Natural Diamonds
GIA created the 4Cs—cut, color, clarity, and carat weight—as a rigorous system to help consumers understand the unique and complex qualities of natural diamonds. No two natural diamonds are exactly alike. They are rare geological miracles forged deep within the Earth over billions of years, each carrying a singular fingerprint from Mother Nature. A grading report for a natural diamond is essential because these stones exist along an immense spectrum of characteristics.
Meet the Expert
Grant Mobley is the Jewelry & Watch Editor of Only Natural Diamonds.
He is a GIA Diamonds Graduate.
He has over 17 years of jewelry industry experience, starting with growing up in his family’s retail jewelry stores.
An uncut lab grown diamond
Why GIA Is Changing the Way Lab Grown Diamonds Are Graded
Lab-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are man-made and mass-produced using high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) or Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) processes. According to Tom Moses, GIA executive vice president and chief laboratory and research officer, “More than 95% of laboratory-grown diamonds entering the market fall into a very narrow range of color and clarity. Because of that, it is no longer relevant for GIA to describe man-made diamonds using the nomenclature created for the continuum of color and clarity of natural diamonds.”Why Lab Grown Diamond Grading Needs a Different System
By replacing detailed grading reports with broader descriptors, such as “premium” and “standard,” GIA is drawing a clear line in the sand. They are telling consumers that these are not the same products and they should not be evaluated in the same way. And coming from GIA—the trusted nonprofit organization that established global diamond grading standards in 1953—this statement couldn’t be more authoritative.
Natural Diamonds: Rarity, Value, and Geological Identity
To understand why this change to lab grown diamond grading matters, it’s essential to examine what drives the value of natural diamonds: rarity and identity. Each natural diamond is finite, with unique growth patterns, internal inclusions, and color subtleties shaped by millions or even billions of years underground. These one-of-a-kind gems are the original luxury product—not just beautiful but rare and no longer forming in nature. Lab-grown diamonds, conversely, can be created in virtually unlimited quantities and replicated in appearance with astonishing ease. There is no rarity. There is no geological story. There is no true investment potential.
Ring Courtesy of The Clear Cut
Why Clarity in Lab Grown Diamond Grading Matters for Consumers
This distinction has become increasingly blurred by confusing marketing language and unclear labeling practices. Some in the lab-grown diamond space have leaned on the unsubstantiated language of “sustainability” and “equality” in comparison to natural diamonds, despite offering a fundamentally different product. But consumers deserve transparency. They deserve to understand what they’re buying, what it’s worth, and what makes one stone different from another. That’s precisely why this change from GIA is so important.
It’s also a return to the Institute’s founding principles. GIA exists to protect the public trust in gems and jewelry. With this shift, the Institute is ensuring that consumers can make informed choices without being misled by false equivalencies. By stepping away from the 4Cs for lab-grown diamonds, GIA is reaffirming its commitment to scientific integrity and public transparency.
GIA Diamond Grading Report
Let me be clear: This is not about pitting one product against another. Lab-grown diamonds have their place in the market. But we must stop pretending they are interchangeable with natural diamonds. They are not heirlooms, they are not investments, and they are not rare.
GIA’s decision demonstrates that natural diamonds continue to be the benchmark of authenticity, value, and irreplaceability. They are not merely carbon crystals—they are ancient, unrepeatable creations of nature, each with a backstory written in geologic time.
As this policy rolls out in late 2025, expect other gem labs to follow suit. The line separating lab-created simulacra and natural geological masterpieces is being redrawn with bold ink—and GIA is holding the pen.
The difference in diamond grading between laboratories like GIA (Gemological Institute of America) and DCLA (Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia) can occur due to the subjective nature of diamond grading and variations in grading standards, tools, and methodology.
Here’s a detailed explanation of why this happens:
Example of a diamond graded GIA E VS2 vs DCLA F SI1:
1. Grading is Subjective to Some Extent
Even though labs follow international grading systems like those defined by CIBJO or GIA, colour and clarity grading involves human judgment under magnification and controlled lighting conditions. Two experienced graders may interpret borderline characteristics differently.
Colour: E and F are adjacent grades, and the difference is extremely subtle—often imperceptible to the untrained eye.
Clarity: The distinction between VS2 (Very Slightly Included 2) and SI1 (Slightly Included 1) can also hinge on size, position, nature, and number of inclusions, which may be judged differently by separate labs.
2. Different Lab Philosophies
GIA is widely considered the global benchmark for consistency and tends to be more conservative in some grading aspects, especially in colour.
DCLA, while highly respected and CIBJO-accredited (and Australia’s official diamond authority), might interpret certain characteristics differently based on their internal grading protocols.
3. Grading Conditions and Equipment
Minor differences in:
Lighting
Magnification tools
Grading environments can affect the appearance of a diamond, especially in borderline cases.
4. Grading Date and Re-evaluation
Grading can differ if:
The diamond was graded at different times.
The diamond was repolished or slightly recut between submissions.
The grader has different levels of training or experience (even within the same lab over time).
5. Lab-to-Lab Variance Is a Known Industry Factor
Even among top labs (GIA, IGI, HRD, AGS, DCLA), 1-grade differences in colour or clarity are common and not considered errors. This is why many dealers and appraisers say a difference of one colour or clarity grade is within acceptable tolerance.
In Your Example:
GIA E VS2 vs DCLA F SI1:
The colour difference (E vs F): within acceptable tolerance; both are considered colourless.
The clarity difference (VS2 vs SI1): SI1 is a full grade lower, but this could be due to:
An inclusion judged more impactful by DCLA
A stricter application of clarity grading by DCLA
GIA possibly being more lenient on that particular clarity characteristic
Differences like GIA E VS2 and DCLA F SI1 can result from:
Subjective human interpretation
Slightly different grading standards
Borderline characteristics
Environmental and technical grading factors
For buyers or sellers, it’s important to:
Always compare certificates from top-tier labs.
Understand that 1-grade discrepancies are common.
Consider getting a professional review if there’s a significant value implication.
GIA says its Dubai and Hong Kong labs will accept larger stones for grading, in the wake of President Trump’s imposition of retaliatory tariffs on its trading partners.
Last week GIA said its US labs in New York and California would not accept submissions from overseas until confusion had been cleared up over the status of stones entering the country for grading rather than for sale.
In a statement on Monday (7 April) the world’s biggest grading lab said that because of tariff-related “logistical challenges” it was temporarily expanding services in Dubai and Hong Kong.
Dubai will now accept rough or polished diamonds (D-Z) up to 9.99-cts and Hong Kong will impose no size limit, until further notice.
Both labs previously had a 3.99-cts upper size limit. In addition, Hong Kong will now grade fancy color diamonds.
GIA is to close its lab in Ramat Gan, Israel, saying it is no longer “financially sustainable”.
The facility, which opened in August 2012, will close by the end of this year. Submissions will be sent to GIA labs elsewhere, with no additional shipping costs, the lab said in a press statement.
GIA was not able to say at this stage which other labs it would use (Dubai is the closest), or how much extra time that would take.
“Despite reductions in operating costs and reduced staffing through attrition, the laboratory is not financially sustainable,” said GIA, which grades the majority of the world’s polished diamonds.
“The GIA laboratory in Ramat Gan, Israel, will end operations by the end of 2024 due to changes in the global diamond industry that resulted in significant declines in submissions from local clients over the last several years.”
GIA closed its Antwerp lab in July 2022, citing “limited demand for services and financial performance that did not support continued operations”.
It also has labs in Bangkok, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Surat, Tokyo, Carlsbad, New York, Dubai, Gaborone and Johannesburg, according to its website.
From 17 November submissions to the Ramat Gan laboratory will be sent elsewhere. “GIA is working to establish a third-party process to accept submissions from walk-in clients in Ramat Gan for service in other GIA laboratories,” the lab said.
As Guy Borenstein gears up for Stuller’s Bench Jeweler Workshop in March, there’s one hot topic that will be addressed for the fifth consecutive year: synthetic diamonds.
There’s no shortage of available equipment to detect lab-grown diamonds. According to the Natural Diamond Council (NDC), there are about 40 instruments on the market that aim to discover natural versus synthetic diamonds.
“Five years ago, I asked attendees how many were screening for lab-grown diamonds [LGDs] and one hand went up,” says the director of gemstone procurement for the Lafayette, Louisiana-based manufacturer. That number has grown as the years passed, but “the majority are still not checking,” he adds.
Considering the recent number of undisclosed synthetics sent to labs, retailers should be more vigilant. In the last two months, four labs — comprising one in Italy and three, including the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), with US outposts — have reported incidents of synthetic diamonds submitted for grading under the guise of being natural. The labs, with their multitude of testing instruments and scientific savvy, have the manpower and resources to uncover the truth, but what about retailers, small manufacturers, and dealers? Other than sending every diamond purchased either over the counter or from a jewelry maker to a lab, what can the rest of industry do to guard against unknowing purchases of synthetic diamonds? Screen, baby, screen.
Marc Altman of B&E Jewelers in Southampton, Pennsylvania., started selling synthetics only last year, but has encountered them in newly manufactured goods sold to him as natural and in the engagement rings of unknowing clients. In the case of the new jewelry, he suspects it was an honest error.
“It was one ring,” he says. “It was a big order, and my assumption was that they also made jewelry with LGDs.”
Thanks to his GIA ID100 screening tool, he was able to spot-check trays of new finished jewelry. In the case of individual client rings, he’ll use a polariscope and the ID100 to determine if a diamond is natural or synthetic. In the last three weeks, he’s taken in two rings for resizing that were set with lab-grown and not the natural diamonds that clients thought they had. These examples are why screening goods on intake is critical and reveals deficiencies in disclosure by others at the time of sale. These are lawsuits in the making.
“If I didn’t [screen], my reputation would be at risk,” he says.
Fraud or flub?
Recent high-profile lab incidents aside — like the 6-carat synthetic laser-inscribed as a natural the International Gemological Institute (IGI) examined, or the pink, yellow and brown lab-grown diamonds posing as natural that Gem Science Laboratory (GSI) received — not every facility sees the spike in undisclosed synthetics as deliberate by fraudsters.
As a percentage of all diamonds examined, the number submitted as natural that turn out to be lab-grown is miniscule, says IGI CEO Tehmasp Printer.
“Ten years ago, 95% of parcels were contaminated,” he continues. “Today that number is reduced to half a percent. Initially, some did try to push LGDs as naturals and then labs learned how to ID the material. Now, there are mistakes and errors, but most are not intentional. No manufacturers are polishing LGDs and naturals in the same space; it’s done separately. The problems occur when parcels are given out for memo, and then there is a little switch here and there by mistake.”
Other incidents aren’t as clear. A recent GSI discovery involved mounted brown diamonds with linear graining and polished surfaces “to try to pass it as natural,” maintains Debbie Azar, cofounder and president of GSI. “While initial gemological observations would suggest they were likely natural, our advanced testing processes revealed they were CVD [chemical vapor deposition lab-grown diamonds] almost immediately by looking at their optical defects.”
No matter the intention behind the incidents, GIA takes each one — and steps to avoid them — seriously. For example, nearly every synthetic diamond that comes in for a report is inscribed as such. It also recently unveiled a same-day service for report confirmation of GIA-graded diamonds with or without markings. The service is offered to combat fraudulent inscriptions and for now is free.
“We should all be doing everything possible to ensure consumer trust,” says Pritesh Patel, GIA senior vice president and chief operating officer. Patel is responsible for lab operations. “One is not more vulnerable than another in the trade; everybody should be vigilant,” he cautions.
One of the toughest tasks in effectively screening jewelry today is the large quantity of small stones. The labs can handle it, but it’s tedious.
“Our biggest challenge is testing items encrusted with micro-pavé — jewelry set with 0.005-carat and smaller diamonds,” says Angelo Palmieri, president of GCAL by Sarine. “The challenge predominantly revolves around exercising patience.”
Then there are the hidden halos of diamonds; only visible diamonds can be easily checked on finished jewelry, so the trade must remember to flip pieces on their sides for inspection.
“We see as many naturals in LGD-set jewelry as we see LGDs in natural diamond jewelry,” adds Palmieri. “We see this happen with everybody, from high-end brands to sightholders. We’re not seeing 50% wrong — we see cases where one is natural or LGD. It doesn’t look intentional; it looks like it’s hard to keep track of the melee.”
Azar, too, is familiar with this wearisome process.
“Pieces with smaller diamonds and melee can be extremely time-consuming and the work is intricate,” she says. “We screen thousands of diamonds each day and we are detecting undisclosed laboratory-grown diamonds every day. They are usually in mounted goods where the mounting obscures full observation of the diamond.”
The solution? Enhanced quality controls such as constant and repeated testing when diamonds are loose and once they’re set. “Most companies don’t want to put in the hard work (and patience) that comes with thorough and complete testing,” observes Palmieri.
IGI screening lab. (IGI)Tools and techniques
Like Altman, other retailers can use a microscope, polariscope and GIA’s ID100 in store — they’re compact and not too cost prohibitive.
Labs have myriad methods, including custom machines and proprietary research, to uncover the truth. There are also common methods used by all labs, like “Raman and photoluminescence spectroscopy” and “basic gemological testing,” among others, notes Palmieri.
GIA even has a facility in New Jersey devoted solely to the study of lab-grown diamonds to stay ahead of their developments. “GIA spends a tremendous amount on research,” notes Patel.
GIA Gem Instruments Polariscope. (GIA)
Lab consensus is that one instrument isn’t enough. Multiple tools and experienced operators are necessary to reveal undisclosed synthetics.
“Each instrument has its own advantages and limitations,” says Palmieri. “No one machine can give you all the answers.”
Azar urges the trade to adopt a deductive process for distinguishing between naturals and synthetics. For example, does it have garnet crystals? Then it is “definitively natural,” she says. But if a diamond has no inclusions or is type IIa, send it to a lab for testing. For mounted goods, “all bets are off because of the complexities,” she adds.
Dror Yehuda, president of Yehuda Diamond Company — formerly a maker of clarity-enhanced diamonds — shifted to manufacturing diamond detectors around 2015. That’s the year, he maintains, that lab-grown diamonds came to market with gusto. “The vast majority of my customers stopped carrying my Yehuda diamonds and moved to LGDs,” he reveals.
As a result, Yehuda built the first Sherlock Holmes detector, which is in its fourth generation. Three models now exist to accommodate a variety of needs and budgets.
To date, he has sold over 15,000 detectors worldwide.
“The second generation was tested by project Assure and was the only detector other than [De Beers’] SynthDetect that detected 100% of the LGDs,” says Yehuda.
The Assure Directory from the NDC is a resource for anyone trying to determine what instruments to purchase. Assure provides results of independent testing of a “wide range of diamond-verification instruments,” according to Samantha Sibley, technical educator at De Beers Group Ignite in the UK, which spearheads De Beers’ corporate approach to innovation.
Assure tests instruments for “diamond accuracy, referral rates, speed, and natural false positive rates [i.e., does the instrument pass any synthetic diamonds as natural?],” she continues. “The latter is the most crucial measure, and all De Beers verification instruments have a 0% false positive rate from both Assure 1.0 [2019] and Assure 2.0 [2022].”
Big Sherlock. (Yehuda Diamond Company)Model behavior
Manufacturing house Stuller takes extreme precautions to safeguard against undisclosed synthetics. The firm has 62 pieces of screening equipment and 40 associates to run them. It even has an in-house GIA lab for melee analysis (Stuller staffers aren’t even allowed inside).
Starting at a quarter of a point, Stuller tests every diamond individually, screening more than 5 million units a year. Each stone is tested by at least two different technologies so one “can compensate for the weakness of another,” adds Borenstein. “In a year, 50,000 units out of 5 million go to the lab for further tests.”
The onus is on Stuller to test because of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations.
“Every player throughout the supply chain should test,” he urges. “We are still catching undisclosed stones on a daily basis, so just imagine how many of those are filtering into the market in an area with no screening at all.”
GIA iD100 instrument.(GIA)
Jay Seiler of Jay Seiler Jewelers in Duluth, Minnesota, is a risk taker. He has a Presidium tester to weed out cubic zirconia and moissanite when he buys gold, but no other equipment in-house to test diamonds. Why? He’s a private jeweler now after years of operating a big store. His clients are largely older, known to him, bought diamonds before the advent of lab-grown, and 90% of his work is custom. Still, what about the new diamonds he buys? Therein lies the risk.
By the time someone faces an undisclosed synthetic, however, it’s likely too late. “You won’t be able to defend yourself in court,” says Borenstein.
“Disclosure is not as explicit as it should be, and that will be a huge challenge for retailers in a few years,” says Palmieri.
GIA says it has expanded its new verification service – aimed at combating “cloned diamond” fraud – to all its labs.
The Report Confirmation Service was launched last month in New York to identify lab growns being submitted for regrading as natural diamonds.
GIA says the service is now available at all locations. It will accept walk-in and courier submissions, will turn around loose diamonds in as little as 15 minutes, and will, initially, make no charge.
The service is available for GIA-graded diamonds with and without inscriptions. An original GIA cert is helpful but not essential.
An increasing number of lab growns are being fraudulently submitted for re-grading. They are cut to match the specifications of natural diamonds that have already been graded and inscribed with either with a GIA number (genuine or fake).
“Combatting this fraud is vital to protecting the public and ensuring their confidence in gems and jewelry – this is GIA’s mission,” said GIA president and CEO Susan Jacques.
The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) has launched a new laboratory in the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC).
The location opened on February 19, the GIA said Tuesday. The lab will provide services only for clients operating in Dubai’s free trade zones and will be unable to accept submissions from other areas in the emirate, the GIA explained. However, in the near future the location will be able to accept intake from additional countries.
“The establishment of the GIA DMCC laboratory…adds significant value not only for our free-zone members but also for the wider industry, particularly when it comes to speeding up cycle times,” said Ahmed bin Sulayem, executive chairman and CEO of the DMCC.
The new Dubai lab will grade diamonds ranging in color from D to Z and weighing up to 3.99 carats, the GIA added.
The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) identified two diamonds, each over 4 carats, that had been stolen from a home in Colorado.
The stones were taken together with four other pieces of jewelry in June 2023, the GIA said Monday. The combined total of all six pieces is over $475,000.
A wholesale diamond dealer, who was uninvolved in the crime, sent the diamonds to the GIA for grading. When the GIA matched the stones to their reports, it found they had been reported stolen, and alerted detectives from the Boulder County Sherriff’s Office (BCSO), who were then able to use that information to make an arrest in the case, the institute explained.
“GIA often receives requests from law enforcement to help them recover GIA-graded diamonds that are reported lost or stolen,” said Christina Yates, associate general counsel responsible for this aspect of GIA’s work with law enforcement.
The GIA has trained agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Customs Service and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in multiple countries, including the US, Canada, the UK, Belgium, Dubai, Israel and Hong Kong.
The International Gemological Institute’s laboratory in Tel Aviv recently detected a 6-carat lab-grown diamond that someone apparently was hoping to pass off as a natural stone.
The 6.01-carat, pear-shaped synthetic diamond was fraudulently inscribed with the Gemological Institute of America report number for a G-color natural diamond of the same size and shape, but with a few key differences, IGI said in a news release issued Tuesday.
First, the lab said, photoluminescence (PL) spectroscopy, which is now widely used by grading labs to separate natural diamonds from lab-grown stones and to identify diamond treatments, shows a wavelength peak of 737 nanometers in the diamond (see chart below).
This is an indicator that the diamond was grown in a factory using the chemical vapor deposition process.
IGI photoluminescence spectra The photoluminescence spectra for the 6.01-carat lab-grown diamond recently examined by the International Gemological Institute
Second, when examined under a microscope, IGI graders saw a carbon inclusion where the feather was indicated on the clarity plotting diagram in the GIA report.
They also noticed a cloud inclusion, resulting in IGI giving the lab-grown diamond a lower clarity grade than VVS1, the clarity grade of the natural diamond.
Lastly, there was a discrepancy between the depth of the diamond IGI examined and the depth noted on the GIA report.
“Everyone in our industry must be vigilant,” said IGI CEO Tehmasp Printer, who took over as head of the lab in October after Roland Lorie retired.
“As attempted fraud increases, the need for ongoing verification is a necessary step to protect consumers from purchasing misrepresented gems and jewelry.”
