Gem Diamonds Recovers 101ct. Stone

Gem Diamonds has unearthed a 100.50-carat diamond from its Letšeng mine in Lesotho, it said Friday.

The white, type IIa stone is the 11th over 100 carats the miner has recovered from the asset so far this year.

Gem Diamonds owns 70% of the Letšeng mine, with the state holding the remaining shares. The company also owns the Ghaghoo mine in Botswana, which it plans to sell.

Source: DCLA 

Gem Diamonds Recovers 101ct. Stone

Gem Diamonds has unearthed a 100.50-carat diamond from its Letšeng mine in Lesotho, it said Friday.

The white, type IIa stone is the 11th over 100 carats the miner has recovered from the asset so far this year.

Gem Diamonds owns 70% of the Letšeng mine, with the state holding the remaining shares. The company also owns the Ghaghoo mine in Botswana, which it plans to sell.

Source: DCLA 

Dubai Police recover $20 million diamond stolen from UAE-based company

Police analysed thousands of hours of CCTV footage and questioned over 100 people to investigate the daring theft of a $20 million diamond from the vault of a Dubai based company.

Police were alerted about a robbery of a rare stone 9.33 carat after an unknown person broke through three security gates to get to the company’s vault on May 25. “The security system of the vault requires a group of employees to open the last gate simultaneously.

Despite the precautionary measures, the suspect managed to steal the diamond.

In a major operation, Dubai Police recovered the diamond from Sri Lanka after it was smuggled out of the UAE in a shoe box by sea, an official said.

 

The suspect, a guard working with the money transfer company, was arrested in the UAE. After stealing the diamond, he gave it to a relative who smuggled the precious stone out of the UAE by hiding it in a sports shoe box, the police said.

The Asian suspect, who worked for the company. was arrested in a neighbouring emirate, had managed to break through three security gates to the vault to steal the diamond.

Source: DCLA 

Dubai Police recover $20 million diamond stolen from UAE-based company

Police analysed thousands of hours of CCTV footage and questioned over 100 people to investigate the daring theft of a $20 million diamond from the vault of a Dubai based company.

Police were alerted about a robbery of a rare stone 9.33 carat after an unknown person broke through three security gates to get to the company’s vault on May 25. “The security system of the vault requires a group of employees to open the last gate simultaneously.

Despite the precautionary measures, the suspect managed to steal the diamond.

In a major operation, Dubai Police recovered the diamond from Sri Lanka after it was smuggled out of the UAE in a shoe box by sea, an official said.

 

The suspect, a guard working with the money transfer company, was arrested in the UAE. After stealing the diamond, he gave it to a relative who smuggled the precious stone out of the UAE by hiding it in a sports shoe box, the police said.

The Asian suspect, who worked for the company. was arrested in a neighbouring emirate, had managed to break through three security gates to the vault to steal the diamond.

Source: DCLA 

FTC Drops ‘Natural’ From Definition of Diamond, A Win for Lab-Grown Producers

In what can only be described as a victory for laboratory-grown diamond producers, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has dropped the word ‘natural’ from its definition of a diamond, essentially redefining ‘diamond’ to include non-mined gemstones, as part its new guides for the jewelry industry.

It further gives additional leeway to existing standards regarding the description of lab-grown diamonds (and metal alloys), and has dropped ‘synthetic’ as an appropriate descriptor of lab-grown diamonds except under certain circumstances. “The revision makes relatively far-reaching changes in what’s allowed as far as marketing lab-grown diamonds,” writes JCK’s Rob Bates, “and these changes almost entirely tilt toward the lab-grown sector.”

According to section § 23.12 of the Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, “Definition and misuse of the word ‘’diamond’,” the FTC writes: “A diamond is a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system”, whereas it previously read “natural mineral”. “The Commision,” reads the Guide, “no longer defines a “diamond” by using the term “natural” because it is no longer accurate to define diamonds as “natural” when it is now possible to create products that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds.” Later in the explanation of its changes, the commission describes why it sided with Diamond Foundry: “Diamond Foundry asked that the Commission remove “natural” from the diamond definition. It contended, “[t]he fact that diamonds exist in the soil of Earth” is “not a necessary attribute.” In its analysis, “The Commission agrees. The final Guides therefore eliminate the word “natural” from the diamond definition. When the Commission first used this definition in 1956, there was only one type of diamond product on the market – natural stones mined from the earth. Since then, technological advances have made it possible to create diamonds in a laboratory. These stones have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds. Thus, they are diamonds.”

‘Synthetic’ no longer recommended

In addition to this fundamental change to the definition of ‘diamond’, the FTC has opened the door to a much wider range of discriptors for lab-grown diamonds, provided they are not confusing for consumers. The Guides details its consideration of “cultured diamonds” according to the issues presented by the International Grown Diamond Association (IDMA) and Diamond Foundry on the one hand, and the Diamond Producers Association and Jewelers Vigilance Committee on the other. While the former did not get all it asked for (such as restricting the use of “ethical” or “conflict-free” diamonds to those from countries adhering to US labor standards), they tilted the balance in their favor. As Rob Bates points out, “In the past, the Guides listed the following approved descriptors for non-mined diamonds: laboratory-created, laboratory-grown, [manufacturer-name]-created, and synthetic. The new Guides still recommend the first three descriptions – though they no longer include synthetic. They also say that manufacturers can use other phrases if those terms “clearly and conspicuously convey that the product is not a mined stone.” And while adjectives such as created, grown and foundry are not recommended as descriptors, the commission says if the “suggested terms could be used non-deceptively in context (e.g., as part of an ad highlighting that the product is man-made), there is nothing to prevent marketers from doing so.”

As for using the word “cultured” to describe non-mined stones, the commission said it should be qualified, as the term on its own often leads consumers to believe a diamond is mined. The commission suggests marketers use words such as “man-made,” “lab-grown” or “foundry” to qualify “cultured,” thereby avoiding confusion about a diamond’s origins. However, marketers should not use the word “synthetic” to qualify “cultured,” the FTC noted, as it creates confusion among consumers, who believe the term indicates a stone is fake or artificial. Yet the commission goes even a step further in loosening its guidance on the use of ‘cultured’: While it still recommends against using the term cultured on its own, it now says that cultured can be used even if not immediately preceded by one of the approved descriptors.

Several commenters cited in the report, however, stated that the commission’s proposed guidance is inconsistent with international standards, which ban even the qualified use of “cultured” to describe synthetic diamonds. For example, a standard adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 2015 prohibits using “cultured” and “cultivated” to describe synthetic diamonds, and requires sellers to describe such products as “synthetic,” “laboratory-grown,” or “laboratory-created.” The JVC contended that the purpose of the ISO standard is “fully aligned” with the FTC Jewelry Guides. The fact that the FTC decided otherwise points to a rift between the new American standards and international ISO standards (a not uncommon rift nowadays). While the FTC removed ‘synthetic’ from its suggested descriptors, it declined to prohibit its use (another request by diamond growers), arguing that the term is not deceptive in every instance. But it did rule that it is misleading to use the term synthetic to “suggest a competitor’s lab-grown diamond is not an actual diamond.”

The changes, approved unanimously by the five-member commission, cap a six-year process of revamping the much-talked-about standards for marketing jewelry and gems. This revision marks the Guides’ first major overhaul in 22 years.

Source: thediamondloupe.

FTC Drops ‘Natural’ From Definition of Diamond, A Win for Lab-Grown Producers

In what can only be described as a victory for laboratory-grown diamond producers, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has dropped the word ‘natural’ from its definition of a diamond, essentially redefining ‘diamond’ to include non-mined gemstones, as part its new guides for the jewelry industry.

It further gives additional leeway to existing standards regarding the description of lab-grown diamonds (and metal alloys), and has dropped ‘synthetic’ as an appropriate descriptor of lab-grown diamonds except under certain circumstances. “The revision makes relatively far-reaching changes in what’s allowed as far as marketing lab-grown diamonds,” writes JCK’s Rob Bates, “and these changes almost entirely tilt toward the lab-grown sector.”

According to section § 23.12 of the Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, “Definition and misuse of the word ‘’diamond’,” the FTC writes: “A diamond is a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system”, whereas it previously read “natural mineral”. “The Commision,” reads the Guide, “no longer defines a “diamond” by using the term “natural” because it is no longer accurate to define diamonds as “natural” when it is now possible to create products that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds.” Later in the explanation of its changes, the commission describes why it sided with Diamond Foundry: “Diamond Foundry asked that the Commission remove “natural” from the diamond definition. It contended, “[t]he fact that diamonds exist in the soil of Earth” is “not a necessary attribute.” In its analysis, “The Commission agrees. The final Guides therefore eliminate the word “natural” from the diamond definition. When the Commission first used this definition in 1956, there was only one type of diamond product on the market – natural stones mined from the earth. Since then, technological advances have made it possible to create diamonds in a laboratory. These stones have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds. Thus, they are diamonds.”

‘Synthetic’ no longer recommended

In addition to this fundamental change to the definition of ‘diamond’, the FTC has opened the door to a much wider range of discriptors for lab-grown diamonds, provided they are not confusing for consumers. The Guides details its consideration of “cultured diamonds” according to the issues presented by the International Grown Diamond Association (IDMA) and Diamond Foundry on the one hand, and the Diamond Producers Association and Jewelers Vigilance Committee on the other. While the former did not get all it asked for (such as restricting the use of “ethical” or “conflict-free” diamonds to those from countries adhering to US labor standards), they tilted the balance in their favor. As Rob Bates points out, “In the past, the Guides listed the following approved descriptors for non-mined diamonds: laboratory-created, laboratory-grown, [manufacturer-name]-created, and synthetic. The new Guides still recommend the first three descriptions – though they no longer include synthetic. They also say that manufacturers can use other phrases if those terms “clearly and conspicuously convey that the product is not a mined stone.” And while adjectives such as created, grown and foundry are not recommended as descriptors, the commission says if the “suggested terms could be used non-deceptively in context (e.g., as part of an ad highlighting that the product is man-made), there is nothing to prevent marketers from doing so.”

As for using the word “cultured” to describe non-mined stones, the commission said it should be qualified, as the term on its own often leads consumers to believe a diamond is mined. The commission suggests marketers use words such as “man-made,” “lab-grown” or “foundry” to qualify “cultured,” thereby avoiding confusion about a diamond’s origins. However, marketers should not use the word “synthetic” to qualify “cultured,” the FTC noted, as it creates confusion among consumers, who believe the term indicates a stone is fake or artificial. Yet the commission goes even a step further in loosening its guidance on the use of ‘cultured’: While it still recommends against using the term cultured on its own, it now says that cultured can be used even if not immediately preceded by one of the approved descriptors.

Several commenters cited in the report, however, stated that the commission’s proposed guidance is inconsistent with international standards, which ban even the qualified use of “cultured” to describe synthetic diamonds. For example, a standard adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 2015 prohibits using “cultured” and “cultivated” to describe synthetic diamonds, and requires sellers to describe such products as “synthetic,” “laboratory-grown,” or “laboratory-created.” The JVC contended that the purpose of the ISO standard is “fully aligned” with the FTC Jewelry Guides. The fact that the FTC decided otherwise points to a rift between the new American standards and international ISO standards (a not uncommon rift nowadays). While the FTC removed ‘synthetic’ from its suggested descriptors, it declined to prohibit its use (another request by diamond growers), arguing that the term is not deceptive in every instance. But it did rule that it is misleading to use the term synthetic to “suggest a competitor’s lab-grown diamond is not an actual diamond.”

The changes, approved unanimously by the five-member commission, cap a six-year process of revamping the much-talked-about standards for marketing jewelry and gems. This revision marks the Guides’ first major overhaul in 22 years.

Source: thediamondloupe.

Bank financing to India’s gem and jewelry sector has fallen at least 10% since April 1 due to stricter lending conditions, according to the trade’s export promotion body.

Credit providers tightened their rules after allegations in January that jewelry tycoon Nirav Modi had defrauded Punjab National Bank of $2 billion. Financial institutions have been requiring higher collateral levels since the scandal, the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council explained Tuesday.

In addition, lenders that offer “discounting” giving companies an advance on their customers’ unpaid bills are increasingly insisting on clearing all the relevant invoices. Borrowers must gives invoices to their bank, which sends the documents on to the buyer’s bank. That means sellers only receive payment, and buyers only receive the goods, once both lenders have given their approval. That requirement is damaging traders’ relationships with their customers and restricting cash flow, the council added.

Meanwhile, banks have stopped offering discounts for the sector when charging fees for assessing borrowers before granting a loan, the GJEPC noted.

“The industry is witnessing a crisis of sorts, as the banks have curtailed lending to the traders, and demanding collateral security and extensive documentation,” said GJEPC chairman Pramod Agrawal. “We are hoping that the government will intervene and bring some relief to the ailing industry that contributes 7% to [gross domestic product].”

India’s gem and jewelry exports will also decline 10% in the fiscal year ending March 2019 as the credit situation will adversely affect the sector, the GJEPC predicted. Shipments out of India fell 9% year on year to $10.1 billion for the industry in the April-to-June period, it added.

The GJEPC took measures in May to deal with the crisis, including launching a digital know-your-customer platform, MyKYC, and publishing a policy document outlining how the jewelry and banking industries can reduce risk. Agrawal has also called on the government to offer the industry an interest-subvention scheme, in which the state helps borrowers with their interest payments.