Synthetic Diamond Fraudulently Inscribed To Match Natural Diamond Report

Improvements in diamond growth technology and methods have led to a noticeable increase in colorless synthetic gem diamonds in recent years. Concerns in the diamond industry focus on laboratory-grown diamonds not being properly disclosed or even being sold as natural stones. Through careful examination and analysis, gemological laboratories can separate natural from synthetic diamonds. Occasionally, however, fraud is involved in attempting to conceal a gem’s identity. The Carlsbad laboratory witnessed such an attempt.
On this occasion, a round brilliant cut (figure 1, left) was submitted for an updated diamond grading report. Its girdle was inscribed with an actual GIA report number issued in 2015 (figure 1, right). The older report was for a natural, untreated diamond and contained the following grading information: 1.74 ct, round brilliant cut, D color, Excellent cut grade, and VVS₁ clarity. Upon grading, the new submission was described as a 1.76 ct round brilliant cut with F color, Excellent cut grade, and VS₁ clarity. Moreover, our screening processes determined that the newly submitted sample needed additional testing to determine its origin. This examination revealed it to be an HPHT-grown synthetic diamond. Synthetic cuboctahedral growth structure and phosphorescence were clearly visible in DiamondView imaging (figure 2).

Figure 2. DiamondView imaging showed the synthetic growth structure and blue phosphorescence typical of HPHT-grown synthetic diamonds.

Aside from the observed discrepancies in weight (1.74 vs. 1.76 ct), color (D vs. F), and clarity (VVS₁ vs. VS₁), FTIR spectra clearly showed that these were not the same diamond. The natural diamond from the original report was type Ia with aggregated nitrogen impurities, while the new one was type IIb with boron impurities (figure 3). Careful examination of the report number inscribed on the synthetic diamond revealed a font different from the one used by GIA, proving that it was not an authentic inscription.

Figure 3. FTIR absorption spectra revealed that the synthetic diamond was type IIb, whereas the fraudulently inscribed report number referred to a natural type Ia diamond. The spectra are offset for clarity.

While most synthetic diamonds that come to the laboratory are properly disclosed, some are submitted out of concern that a stone presented as natural might be synthetic. Rarely do we encounter the type of blatant fraud described here. It is important for the industry and public to exercise caution, because these types of misleading practices do occur. We believe the submitting client noticed inconsistencies with the GIA report information and sent it to the lab for an updated report. If any doubt exists or some aspect of a diamond (such as an inscription) seems odd, the stone should be sent to a gemological laboratory for verification.
Source: GIA Education

Synthetic Diamond Fraudulently Inscribed To Match Natural Diamond Report

Improvements in diamond growth technology and methods have led to a noticeable increase in colorless synthetic gem diamonds in recent years. Concerns in the diamond industry focus on laboratory-grown diamonds not being properly disclosed or even being sold as natural stones. Through careful examination and analysis, gemological laboratories can separate natural from synthetic diamonds. Occasionally, however, fraud is involved in attempting to conceal a gem’s identity. The Carlsbad laboratory witnessed such an attempt.
On this occasion, a round brilliant cut (figure 1, left) was submitted for an updated diamond grading report. Its girdle was inscribed with an actual GIA report number issued in 2015 (figure 1, right). The older report was for a natural, untreated diamond and contained the following grading information: 1.74 ct, round brilliant cut, D color, Excellent cut grade, and VVS₁ clarity. Upon grading, the new submission was described as a 1.76 ct round brilliant cut with F color, Excellent cut grade, and VS₁ clarity. Moreover, our screening processes determined that the newly submitted sample needed additional testing to determine its origin. This examination revealed it to be an HPHT-grown synthetic diamond. Synthetic cuboctahedral growth structure and phosphorescence were clearly visible in DiamondView imaging (figure 2).

Figure 2. DiamondView imaging showed the synthetic growth structure and blue phosphorescence typical of HPHT-grown synthetic diamonds.

Aside from the observed discrepancies in weight (1.74 vs. 1.76 ct), color (D vs. F), and clarity (VVS₁ vs. VS₁), FTIR spectra clearly showed that these were not the same diamond. The natural diamond from the original report was type Ia with aggregated nitrogen impurities, while the new one was type IIb with boron impurities (figure 3). Careful examination of the report number inscribed on the synthetic diamond revealed a font different from the one used by GIA, proving that it was not an authentic inscription.

Figure 3. FTIR absorption spectra revealed that the synthetic diamond was type IIb, whereas the fraudulently inscribed report number referred to a natural type Ia diamond. The spectra are offset for clarity.

While most synthetic diamonds that come to the laboratory are properly disclosed, some are submitted out of concern that a stone presented as natural might be synthetic. Rarely do we encounter the type of blatant fraud described here. It is important for the industry and public to exercise caution, because these types of misleading practices do occur. We believe the submitting client noticed inconsistencies with the GIA report information and sent it to the lab for an updated report. If any doubt exists or some aspect of a diamond (such as an inscription) seems odd, the stone should be sent to a gemological laboratory for verification.
Source: GIA Education

Another Massive Diamond Recovered

Sierra Leone mining company has recovered a 476 carat rough diamond in the nation’s Kono at Meya.
The 476 Carat stone ranks as the fifth largest rough ever found in Sierra Leone.
Meya holds an exclusive diamond exploration license in the Kono district.
Meya also recovered rough diamonds weighing 27.93 carats and 19.70 carats at the same time.

Read More: DCLA 

Another Massive Diamond Recovered

Sierra Leone mining company has recovered a 476 carat rough diamond in the nation’s Kono at Meya.
The 476 Carat stone ranks as the fifth largest rough ever found in Sierra Leone.
Meya holds an exclusive diamond exploration license in the Kono district.
Meya also recovered rough diamonds weighing 27.93 carats and 19.70 carats at the same time.

Read More: DCLA 

CIBJO and the IDC Agree

The World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO) and the International Diamond Council (IDC) have decided to use the same terminology for describing diamonds, making it easier for consumers to understand grading.

CIBJO agreed to make amendments to its Diamond Book — a guide to grading standards and terminology — following requests by the IDC, an organization that works to ensure consistency in grading across the industry. The IDC’s language will now be “harmonized” with that of the Diamond Book, CIBJO said Tuesday.

“The true beneficiaries of this agreement are the diamond consumers, who will now be able to refer to a single set of rules for describing diamonds,” said CIBJO president Gaetano Cavalieri.

The two organizations finalized the agreement at the CIBJO Congress in Bangkok this week. The International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA), one of the IDC’s founding bodies, has also endorsed the new Diamond Book.

IDC http://www.internationaldiamondcouncil.org

Source: diamonds.net

CIBJO and the IDC Agree

The World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO) and the International Diamond Council (IDC) have decided to use the same terminology for describing diamonds, making it easier for consumers to understand grading.

CIBJO agreed to make amendments to its Diamond Book — a guide to grading standards and terminology — following requests by the IDC, an organization that works to ensure consistency in grading across the industry. The IDC’s language will now be “harmonized” with that of the Diamond Book, CIBJO said Tuesday.

“The true beneficiaries of this agreement are the diamond consumers, who will now be able to refer to a single set of rules for describing diamonds,” said CIBJO president Gaetano Cavalieri.

The two organizations finalized the agreement at the CIBJO Congress in Bangkok this week. The International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA), one of the IDC’s founding bodies, has also endorsed the new Diamond Book.

IDC http://www.internationaldiamondcouncil.org

Source: diamonds.net

Three large diamonds Recovered at Jubilee Pipe

108.34 carat rough diamond

82.82-carat rough diamond

     

163.11 carat rough diamond

Alrosa the Russian miner and top diamond producer by output, recovered three gem quality large rough diamonds.

A 82.82 carat, a 108.34 carat, and a 163.11 carat all light yellow or yellow.

All three rough diamonds were recovered at the Jubilee kimberlite pipe, one of Alrosa’s Mining units Aikhalsky in the country’s northeast.

The three diamonds will be sent to Alrosa’s for assessment in the coming days.

Source: DCLA