Times News Network writes:
Surat's dream to shine brighter on the global diamond map — as a one-stop shop for sparklers — just moved yet another step closer to reality. This diamond manufacturing hub now has a shot at emerging as the global trading hub as well thanks to the Centre's decision to scrap customs duty on cut and polished diamond imports.
The decision promises to propel India into the league of global diamond trading hubs like Belgium, Israel and Hong Kong. After all, if 11 out of every 12 diamonds in the world is processed in India, then nine out these take shape in Surat.
"In the short term, Surat may benefit only indirectly from this move as it is a manufacturing centre and Mumbai is India's trading hub. But in the long run, the future looks bright for Surat," says an upbeat Gujarat Hira Bourse president Chandrakant Sanghavi.
Of course, much of Surat's realizing this ambition hinges on its ability to grab from Mumbai its coveted status as the country's diamond trading and exports hub, as most Surat companies prefer to operate their marketing and exporting offices from Mumbai.
An attempt at this is already underway with the upcoming Ichhapore Gems & Jewellery SEZ. "If Surat can create world class infrastructure like international connectivity, luxury hotels and entertainment, it can unseat a frightfully expensive Mumbai as most of the players would prefer to expand at a cheaper destination. But till such time, international buyers, domestic players would still prefer to trade at Mumbai," adds Sanghavi.
"If Surat can upscale infrastructure, it can easily take away at least 30% of Mumbai's business," says Gitanjali group chairman Mehul Chokshi. So what does this scrapping of customs duty mean for India's diamond industry? The move directly benefits diamond jewellery manufacturers who can now value-add with imports of special cuts or varieties from other global centres. For Indian diamond traders and exporters, the removal of customs duty, which stood at 5% before the budget when Union finance minister slashed it to 3%, will now enable them to stock all varieties of diamonds right here in India.
"From just a global diamond manufacturing, India will now become a global trading hub at par with other major centres. Trading volumes will shoot up and exports will get a boost," points out Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council chairman Sanjay Kothari.
More info @ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Diamond_hub_upbeat_at_duty_cut/articleshow/1999434.cms
Friday, May 04, 2007
The Devil At 4 O'Clock
Memorable quote (s) from the movie:
Harry (Frank Sinatra): Hey, Holy Joe, we don't owe you nuttin', so don't start pushin'.
Father Matthew Doonan (Spencer Tracy): Where you from, tough guy? I hear echoes.
Harry (Frank Sinatra): I've been around... What's it to ya?
Father Matthew Doonan (Spencer Tracy): You spit your T's. That'd be Jersey, I guess, maybe Jersey City. Huh! I came from just across the River - Hell's Kitchen. We used to eat punks like you.
Harry (Frank Sinatra): Maybe. That's when you had your teeth.
Harry (Frank Sinatra): Hey, Holy Joe, we don't owe you nuttin', so don't start pushin'.
Father Matthew Doonan (Spencer Tracy): Where you from, tough guy? I hear echoes.
Harry (Frank Sinatra): I've been around... What's it to ya?
Father Matthew Doonan (Spencer Tracy): You spit your T's. That'd be Jersey, I guess, maybe Jersey City. Huh! I came from just across the River - Hell's Kitchen. We used to eat punks like you.
Harry (Frank Sinatra): Maybe. That's when you had your teeth.
Top Luxury Jewelry Brands
According to the Luxury Institute, the top ten ultra luxury jewelry brands are:
1. Tiffany
2. Cartier
3. De Beers
4. Gucci
5. Bulgari
6. Van Cleef & Arpels
7. Harry Winston
8. Chanel
9. Dior
10. Mikimoto
Useful link:
www.luxuryinstitute.com
1. Tiffany
2. Cartier
3. De Beers
4. Gucci
5. Bulgari
6. Van Cleef & Arpels
7. Harry Winston
8. Chanel
9. Dior
10. Mikimoto
Useful link:
www.luxuryinstitute.com
Diamond Grading And The SI3 Debate
(via Gem & Jewellery News, Vol.13, No.1 March 2004) Harry Levy writes:
It is amazing how little those who use grading certificates understand exactly what they are using. Laboratories, amongst the other work they do, produce two types of certificates. The first is an identification report, telling one whether it is a natural stone or a synthetic one, some identify whether the stone has been modified by treatments other than cutting and polishing, and some may give an origin of the stone, where the stone has been mined.
The other type is a grading report, usually for diamonds, which gives a grade for the color, clarity and other relevant factors to identify the stone, such as its dimensions and shape, as well as comments on cut and proportion, and an indication of fluorescence should this exist. Sometimes these reports are called grading certificates, which is an incorrect description. The grading reports may now include comments on treatments, a topic on which there is yet no universal agreement. Some identification reports are now trying to give comments on the amount of treatment a stone has undergone, for example the amount of oiling or resin-filling an emerald has been subjected to.
Why use reports?
The question to ask is why do we need grading reports and the simple answer is that they are used to put a value on a stone. It makes it simpler to compare stones, both for matching and for pricing. I recall when I first started trading in diamonds I would get a phone call with the question: “How much is a 1 carat diamond?” No matter what answer I gave I was told that they could get it cheaper and it was only after a second discussion could I tell them the price was dependent on the quality and thus give myself a chance of selling a stone.
Today I still get similar calls, although the enquiries seem to be more specific. I am now asked to quote for, say, a one carat diamond of color G and clarity VS1, again when I give a price I am told they can get it cheaper. The potential buyer thinks that by giving the parameters of color and clarity he has totally identified the stone. If I can get back to the caller I ask him he has such a stone and can he measure the diameter of the stone. If he can, I tell him his stone is of diameter of about 6.1mm. I am often asked how did I know and the simple answer is that a well-proportioned carat stone is of diameter 6.5mm and if he is being offered a stone below market value then there is a reason for this in that the stone is too deep or too flat, he has not considered the cut. Price is affected by the amount of fluorescence and the proportion of various facets. Price is also affected by the quality of the rough from which the stone is cut. Grading reports capture as many parameters as they can, but ultimately the final factor determining value is how the stone appears to the eye. One needs much experience to make these subtle judgments.
I have written much in the past about how we have come to have the terminology we use in diamond grading. The most popular system is that used by the GIA of letters for colors and terms such as VVS1 and SI2 for clarity. Other systems are used, using more descriptive terms but some such reports may have a chart showing how their system relates to the GIA one.
All this looks well to most traders, but unfortunately the comparison is not so simple. The main problem is that the sets of master stones used to determine color in different laboratories are not identical. Color is determined by using a trained eye to compare the stone with two adjacent master stones.
In some laboratories a stone that falls between the G and H master stones (i.e. worse than G but better than H) is considered to be G, whereas in others it is the stone between the F and G master stones (i.e worse than F but better than G) that is graded as G. Superficially these two systems seem to contradict each other, but if the G master stone in the one system is the same as the H in the other system then they are both seemingly coming up with the same answer. Thus when determining a master stone set the laboratory can claim that their master stone G, say, is a bottom G or a top G. But how these master stones sets compare to each other is something that is somewhat unknown. A similar problem exists for grading clarity.
The international diamond community tried to reconcile these problems by setting an ISO standard for diamond grading. An analogous problem could be for giving the weight of a stone. It is like some taking two stones of almost the same weight and saying that anything that falls between these two weights is identified as the weight of one of them. Thus if this was the method of determining weight, one could buy a stone in one place and be told that it weighs one carat, and when taken home and weighed again it was found to weight only 0.95 carat. Such ambiguity would be intolerable and, by convention, we have internationally recognized standards for weight. The ISO standard tried to achieve a similar convention for grading diamonds, bringing together the main systems used in the world. After 15 years of hard work the proposed system was not accepted.
Many in the diamond community would like to see such a standard adopted. This would help remove ambiguity and make the comparison of diamonds much easier. Unfortunately trade laboratories do not want to have their system replicated for outside use. Different centers use their own systems for grading and in order to buy and sell in these places one has to use the local grading report, and if one the goes to another center the stone may have to be regarded locally for the traders there. Imagine if one had to do this for weight! This was indeed done for many years from the early 1900s until the metric carat became standard. In many diamond centers one had to obtain an ‘official weight’, either through a local laboratory or a local trade organization. This problem no longer exists for weight, as most dealers now have accurate weighing balances, although the weight in a grading report still has a degree of being more official and thus acceptable than the weight given by the trader.
Thus the most pertinent question, whenever one is given a grading on a diamond, is to ask “Who says so?” Internationally some reports are more acceptable than others, although this can vary locally. If you have followed the arguments so far, you will probably see the need for one acceptable world standard. But I will try to show that even adopting a world standard we will still have ambiguity within the system.
Let me talk about the SI3 debate. The clarity grading for diamonds is accepted to be:
IF: Internally flawless
LC: 10x Loupe clean
VVS1 and VVS2: Very very small inclusions
VS1 and VS2: Very small inclusions
SI1 and SI2: Small or slight inclusions
P1, P2 and P3 or I1, I2 and 13: Visible inclusions
Many traders think that the band classified as P1 is too wide. That is, too many stones of different clarity appearance fall within this grade. One must remember that the grades determine the price and some stones within the P1 band look much better than others within that grade. Thus stones within the same grade could sell for significantly different amounts and traders wish the grading report to somehow show this differential. Some traders began to call the better P1 stones SI3. This new classification has been accepted by bodies such as the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB), many laboratories use it and it is shown on the Rapaport price listing grid. Other trade organizations and some of the major laboratories refuse to recognize this new grade.
The laboratories who refuse to use it claim that an SI stone has inclusions which are not visible to the naked eye, whereas P stones (pique stones) have inclusions which are visible to the naked eye. Bringing stones which have visible inclusions into a classification for stones with inclusions that are not visible will introduce a contradiction into the term SI. Further they argue it will be difficult to define the term SI3 for international use. Then there are those within the trade organizations who feel any changes in the rules will only confuse the trade and the public. They fear retrospective complaints. Thus a stone given a grade at one time could obtain a different grade if it is graded again. Although giving a stone a SI3 grade may be better than calling it a P1 stone, then some stones graded as SI2 may now be graded as SI3.
The reason that the terminology SI3 is being used is that for most traders it is easier to sell a stone with an SI grade than a P grade. This is because we have degraded the stones that have visible inclusions and there is a reluctance to buy a stone with a P grading. In fact very few stones with visible inclusions are graded as the report in most cases will hinder rather than assist a sale. Many dealers will not pass on a report which has a P grading. Thus they are opting for an SI, thinking that this will make it easier to sell the stone. What in fact is the case is not that it is called an SI stone but that it is no longer P1. Not being a P1 is the important criterion. We can call these stones anything we want, for example we could call them VI stones—visible inclusions.
I said above even if we come to agreements to have an ISO standard for diamond grading there are inherent problems within the system. Our grading system has all the trappings of being a scientific system; it has well defined terms, it is subject to measurements and we make use of scientific instruments, and work is done in laboratories by people with scientific qualifications. But at best it is a pseudo science. It is this because it does not really have well defined terms. Linguistically terms used in diamond grading are vague terms. The colors D, E, etc, have all ill-defined scientific basis. They indicate color but are based on only a vague concept of absorption of light. The whitest stone, i.e. the one with the least color, was taken to be D, a stone with a perceptible difference in color was taken as the next stone and called E, and so on for F, G, etc. There is no scientific relationship between the colors D, E and F. We can do this with weight. A 3 carat stone is three times as heavy a 1 carat stone. Also the color scale is no linear. The colors D, E, and F are closer together than the colors J, K and L.
A similar problem exists for clarity grading. The term ‘clean’ seems unambiguous, but in reality it is only clean because we can see no inclusion with a 10x loupe. Put this stone under a microscope and with sufficient magnification one will eventually find inclusions. So grading a diamond is more of an art than a science. Similarly, the terms VVS, VS and so son are again randomly chosen terms. The International Diamond Council (IDC) tried to put some science into the system by measuring the sizes of inclusions in microns. But for grading stones it was not only the size of the inclusion that determined the clarity grade but where it was positioned in the stone. This again brings the art into grading and not just a science of measurement.
Vague terms have no absolute values. Thus a very small elephant is much bigger than a very very large rat, and a spoonful of sugar varies from one time to the next. We understand these terms, we can use them correctly, but not in absolute terms such as grammes, meters or minutes. Those who argue that we cannot define an SI3 term fail to realize that they have defined, in an arbitrary way, all the terms that are used for diamond grading, other than measurements of size and weight and proportion, and introducing one more vague term into a system of vague terms is not beyond our means or imagination.
Those who argue that introducing such a term would make it easier to sell a pique stone have failed to realize that laboratories and grading reports are there to help the trade and not hinder it. Recent developments in the distribution of rough diamonds by organizations such as the Diamond Trading Company (DTC) and the shortage of better quality stones is going to result in more stones of lower grades being offered in the markets to satisfy demand for diamonds. It seems strange to degrade the quality description of such stones.
Another argument espoused by those who do not wish to change the terminology is that the change would confuse the trade and the public. I have used the term VI; this is an arbitrary term I have chosen, it is not a term I am necessarily advocating. It is somewhat provocative on my part in that some will say it is too similar to VVS and VS. The trade is remarkably adept in accepting innovation and anyone who cannot understand the terms we use should not be in the trade. As for the public, it is totally fallacious to say they will be confused. The average member of the public has absolutely no idea what a G/VS1 diamond is. It is not a terminology we are taught at school, but if a graded diamond is sold with a certificate it will have a glossary that explains exactly to him what these terms mean and how they relate to each other. Our trade is far more transparent than almost all other trades. When we look at the ingredients of a foodstuff we think we know exactly what we are eating but how many of us know what E145 is an additive?
Problems such as this and all the new treatments now being done to diamonds to improve their appearance, such as high pressure high temperature (HPHT) and the appearance of synthetic stones is causing consternation within the trade. The subject was discussed at the CIBJO Congress held in Bangkok at the end of February, and will no doubt come up at the World Diamond Council (WDC) meeting in Dubai at the end of March, and meetings being called by smaller groups in other localities. If history is anything to go by, little will be resolved, the conservatives will prevail, they will fear change and find themselves being retroactive instead of proactive. We do not want to resolve problems until they are imposed on us through forces beyond our control.
A final story will illustrate our unwillingness and inability to act. CIBJO allowed only the term ‘treated’ to be used for stones that had been processed by means other than cutting and polishing. White topaz was being irradiated to change its color into various hue of blue. CIBJO was asked to introduce the term ‘irradiated’ to describe such stones, but the term was not accepted and was banned; they had to be designated as treated. The US government brought in legislation that anything that had been irradiated had to be so declared when being imported into
the United States. This was to ensure that such stones would be tested for safety before being distributed. Declaring such stones as treated was inadequate. So CIBJO was forced to allow the term ‘irradiated’ into its lexicon, as otherwise there would not have been trade between the USA and the rest of the world in white topaz artificially colored.
I hope to report back in the next issue of Gem & Jewellery News on any changes, if any, that will be advocated by the trade in these Congresses.
It is amazing how little those who use grading certificates understand exactly what they are using. Laboratories, amongst the other work they do, produce two types of certificates. The first is an identification report, telling one whether it is a natural stone or a synthetic one, some identify whether the stone has been modified by treatments other than cutting and polishing, and some may give an origin of the stone, where the stone has been mined.
The other type is a grading report, usually for diamonds, which gives a grade for the color, clarity and other relevant factors to identify the stone, such as its dimensions and shape, as well as comments on cut and proportion, and an indication of fluorescence should this exist. Sometimes these reports are called grading certificates, which is an incorrect description. The grading reports may now include comments on treatments, a topic on which there is yet no universal agreement. Some identification reports are now trying to give comments on the amount of treatment a stone has undergone, for example the amount of oiling or resin-filling an emerald has been subjected to.
Why use reports?
The question to ask is why do we need grading reports and the simple answer is that they are used to put a value on a stone. It makes it simpler to compare stones, both for matching and for pricing. I recall when I first started trading in diamonds I would get a phone call with the question: “How much is a 1 carat diamond?” No matter what answer I gave I was told that they could get it cheaper and it was only after a second discussion could I tell them the price was dependent on the quality and thus give myself a chance of selling a stone.
Today I still get similar calls, although the enquiries seem to be more specific. I am now asked to quote for, say, a one carat diamond of color G and clarity VS1, again when I give a price I am told they can get it cheaper. The potential buyer thinks that by giving the parameters of color and clarity he has totally identified the stone. If I can get back to the caller I ask him he has such a stone and can he measure the diameter of the stone. If he can, I tell him his stone is of diameter of about 6.1mm. I am often asked how did I know and the simple answer is that a well-proportioned carat stone is of diameter 6.5mm and if he is being offered a stone below market value then there is a reason for this in that the stone is too deep or too flat, he has not considered the cut. Price is affected by the amount of fluorescence and the proportion of various facets. Price is also affected by the quality of the rough from which the stone is cut. Grading reports capture as many parameters as they can, but ultimately the final factor determining value is how the stone appears to the eye. One needs much experience to make these subtle judgments.
I have written much in the past about how we have come to have the terminology we use in diamond grading. The most popular system is that used by the GIA of letters for colors and terms such as VVS1 and SI2 for clarity. Other systems are used, using more descriptive terms but some such reports may have a chart showing how their system relates to the GIA one.
All this looks well to most traders, but unfortunately the comparison is not so simple. The main problem is that the sets of master stones used to determine color in different laboratories are not identical. Color is determined by using a trained eye to compare the stone with two adjacent master stones.
In some laboratories a stone that falls between the G and H master stones (i.e. worse than G but better than H) is considered to be G, whereas in others it is the stone between the F and G master stones (i.e worse than F but better than G) that is graded as G. Superficially these two systems seem to contradict each other, but if the G master stone in the one system is the same as the H in the other system then they are both seemingly coming up with the same answer. Thus when determining a master stone set the laboratory can claim that their master stone G, say, is a bottom G or a top G. But how these master stones sets compare to each other is something that is somewhat unknown. A similar problem exists for grading clarity.
The international diamond community tried to reconcile these problems by setting an ISO standard for diamond grading. An analogous problem could be for giving the weight of a stone. It is like some taking two stones of almost the same weight and saying that anything that falls between these two weights is identified as the weight of one of them. Thus if this was the method of determining weight, one could buy a stone in one place and be told that it weighs one carat, and when taken home and weighed again it was found to weight only 0.95 carat. Such ambiguity would be intolerable and, by convention, we have internationally recognized standards for weight. The ISO standard tried to achieve a similar convention for grading diamonds, bringing together the main systems used in the world. After 15 years of hard work the proposed system was not accepted.
Many in the diamond community would like to see such a standard adopted. This would help remove ambiguity and make the comparison of diamonds much easier. Unfortunately trade laboratories do not want to have their system replicated for outside use. Different centers use their own systems for grading and in order to buy and sell in these places one has to use the local grading report, and if one the goes to another center the stone may have to be regarded locally for the traders there. Imagine if one had to do this for weight! This was indeed done for many years from the early 1900s until the metric carat became standard. In many diamond centers one had to obtain an ‘official weight’, either through a local laboratory or a local trade organization. This problem no longer exists for weight, as most dealers now have accurate weighing balances, although the weight in a grading report still has a degree of being more official and thus acceptable than the weight given by the trader.
Thus the most pertinent question, whenever one is given a grading on a diamond, is to ask “Who says so?” Internationally some reports are more acceptable than others, although this can vary locally. If you have followed the arguments so far, you will probably see the need for one acceptable world standard. But I will try to show that even adopting a world standard we will still have ambiguity within the system.
Let me talk about the SI3 debate. The clarity grading for diamonds is accepted to be:
IF: Internally flawless
LC: 10x Loupe clean
VVS1 and VVS2: Very very small inclusions
VS1 and VS2: Very small inclusions
SI1 and SI2: Small or slight inclusions
P1, P2 and P3 or I1, I2 and 13: Visible inclusions
Many traders think that the band classified as P1 is too wide. That is, too many stones of different clarity appearance fall within this grade. One must remember that the grades determine the price and some stones within the P1 band look much better than others within that grade. Thus stones within the same grade could sell for significantly different amounts and traders wish the grading report to somehow show this differential. Some traders began to call the better P1 stones SI3. This new classification has been accepted by bodies such as the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB), many laboratories use it and it is shown on the Rapaport price listing grid. Other trade organizations and some of the major laboratories refuse to recognize this new grade.
The laboratories who refuse to use it claim that an SI stone has inclusions which are not visible to the naked eye, whereas P stones (pique stones) have inclusions which are visible to the naked eye. Bringing stones which have visible inclusions into a classification for stones with inclusions that are not visible will introduce a contradiction into the term SI. Further they argue it will be difficult to define the term SI3 for international use. Then there are those within the trade organizations who feel any changes in the rules will only confuse the trade and the public. They fear retrospective complaints. Thus a stone given a grade at one time could obtain a different grade if it is graded again. Although giving a stone a SI3 grade may be better than calling it a P1 stone, then some stones graded as SI2 may now be graded as SI3.
The reason that the terminology SI3 is being used is that for most traders it is easier to sell a stone with an SI grade than a P grade. This is because we have degraded the stones that have visible inclusions and there is a reluctance to buy a stone with a P grading. In fact very few stones with visible inclusions are graded as the report in most cases will hinder rather than assist a sale. Many dealers will not pass on a report which has a P grading. Thus they are opting for an SI, thinking that this will make it easier to sell the stone. What in fact is the case is not that it is called an SI stone but that it is no longer P1. Not being a P1 is the important criterion. We can call these stones anything we want, for example we could call them VI stones—visible inclusions.
I said above even if we come to agreements to have an ISO standard for diamond grading there are inherent problems within the system. Our grading system has all the trappings of being a scientific system; it has well defined terms, it is subject to measurements and we make use of scientific instruments, and work is done in laboratories by people with scientific qualifications. But at best it is a pseudo science. It is this because it does not really have well defined terms. Linguistically terms used in diamond grading are vague terms. The colors D, E, etc, have all ill-defined scientific basis. They indicate color but are based on only a vague concept of absorption of light. The whitest stone, i.e. the one with the least color, was taken to be D, a stone with a perceptible difference in color was taken as the next stone and called E, and so on for F, G, etc. There is no scientific relationship between the colors D, E and F. We can do this with weight. A 3 carat stone is three times as heavy a 1 carat stone. Also the color scale is no linear. The colors D, E, and F are closer together than the colors J, K and L.
A similar problem exists for clarity grading. The term ‘clean’ seems unambiguous, but in reality it is only clean because we can see no inclusion with a 10x loupe. Put this stone under a microscope and with sufficient magnification one will eventually find inclusions. So grading a diamond is more of an art than a science. Similarly, the terms VVS, VS and so son are again randomly chosen terms. The International Diamond Council (IDC) tried to put some science into the system by measuring the sizes of inclusions in microns. But for grading stones it was not only the size of the inclusion that determined the clarity grade but where it was positioned in the stone. This again brings the art into grading and not just a science of measurement.
Vague terms have no absolute values. Thus a very small elephant is much bigger than a very very large rat, and a spoonful of sugar varies from one time to the next. We understand these terms, we can use them correctly, but not in absolute terms such as grammes, meters or minutes. Those who argue that we cannot define an SI3 term fail to realize that they have defined, in an arbitrary way, all the terms that are used for diamond grading, other than measurements of size and weight and proportion, and introducing one more vague term into a system of vague terms is not beyond our means or imagination.
Those who argue that introducing such a term would make it easier to sell a pique stone have failed to realize that laboratories and grading reports are there to help the trade and not hinder it. Recent developments in the distribution of rough diamonds by organizations such as the Diamond Trading Company (DTC) and the shortage of better quality stones is going to result in more stones of lower grades being offered in the markets to satisfy demand for diamonds. It seems strange to degrade the quality description of such stones.
Another argument espoused by those who do not wish to change the terminology is that the change would confuse the trade and the public. I have used the term VI; this is an arbitrary term I have chosen, it is not a term I am necessarily advocating. It is somewhat provocative on my part in that some will say it is too similar to VVS and VS. The trade is remarkably adept in accepting innovation and anyone who cannot understand the terms we use should not be in the trade. As for the public, it is totally fallacious to say they will be confused. The average member of the public has absolutely no idea what a G/VS1 diamond is. It is not a terminology we are taught at school, but if a graded diamond is sold with a certificate it will have a glossary that explains exactly to him what these terms mean and how they relate to each other. Our trade is far more transparent than almost all other trades. When we look at the ingredients of a foodstuff we think we know exactly what we are eating but how many of us know what E145 is an additive?
Problems such as this and all the new treatments now being done to diamonds to improve their appearance, such as high pressure high temperature (HPHT) and the appearance of synthetic stones is causing consternation within the trade. The subject was discussed at the CIBJO Congress held in Bangkok at the end of February, and will no doubt come up at the World Diamond Council (WDC) meeting in Dubai at the end of March, and meetings being called by smaller groups in other localities. If history is anything to go by, little will be resolved, the conservatives will prevail, they will fear change and find themselves being retroactive instead of proactive. We do not want to resolve problems until they are imposed on us through forces beyond our control.
A final story will illustrate our unwillingness and inability to act. CIBJO allowed only the term ‘treated’ to be used for stones that had been processed by means other than cutting and polishing. White topaz was being irradiated to change its color into various hue of blue. CIBJO was asked to introduce the term ‘irradiated’ to describe such stones, but the term was not accepted and was banned; they had to be designated as treated. The US government brought in legislation that anything that had been irradiated had to be so declared when being imported into
the United States. This was to ensure that such stones would be tested for safety before being distributed. Declaring such stones as treated was inadequate. So CIBJO was forced to allow the term ‘irradiated’ into its lexicon, as otherwise there would not have been trade between the USA and the rest of the world in white topaz artificially colored.
I hope to report back in the next issue of Gem & Jewellery News on any changes, if any, that will be advocated by the trade in these Congresses.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Taxi Driver
Memorable quote (s) from the movie:
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): You know what you remind me of?
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): What?
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): That song by Kris Kristofferson.
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): Who's that?
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): A songwriter. 'He's a prophet... he's a prophet and a pusher, partly truth, partly fiction. A walking contradiction.'
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): You sayin' that about me?
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): Who else would I be talkin' about?
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): I'm no pusher. I never have pushed.
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): No, no. Just the part about the contradictions. You are that.
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): You know what you remind me of?
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): What?
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): That song by Kris Kristofferson.
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): Who's that?
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): A songwriter. 'He's a prophet... he's a prophet and a pusher, partly truth, partly fiction. A walking contradiction.'
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): You sayin' that about me?
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): Who else would I be talkin' about?
Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro): I'm no pusher. I never have pushed.
Betsy (Cybill Sheperd): No, no. Just the part about the contradictions. You are that.
New Technique Produces 10-carat Diamond
Science daily writes:
Researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. have produced 10-carat, half-inch thick single-crystal diamonds at rapid growth rates (100 micrometers per hour) using a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process. The size is approximately five times that of commercially available diamonds produced by the standard high-pressure/high-temperature (HPHT) method and other CVD techniques.
In addition, the team has made colorless single-crystal diamonds, transparent from the ultraviolet to infrared wavelengths with their CVD process. Most HPHT synthetic diamond is yellow and most CVD diamond is brown, limiting their optical applications. Colorless diamonds are costly to produce and so far those reported are small. This limits general applications of these diamonds as gems, in optics, and in scientific research. Last year, the Carnegie researchers found that HPHT annealing enhances not only the optical properties of some CVD diamond, but also the hardness. Using new techniques, the Carnegie scientists have now produced transparent diamond using a CVD method without HPHT annealing.
"High-quality crystals more than three carats are very difficult to produce using the conventional approach," said scientist Russell Hemley, who leads the diamond effort at Carnegie. "Several groups have begun to grow diamond single crystals by CVD, but large, colorless, and flawless ones remain a challenge. Our fabrication of 10-carat, half-inch, CVD diamonds is a major breakthrough."
The results were reported at the 10th International Conference on New Diamond Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan, on May 12, 2005, and will be reported at the Applied Diamond Congress in Argonne, Ill., May 18, 2005.
"The rapid synthesis of large, single-crystal diamond is a remarkable scientific achievement, and has implications for a wide range of scientific and commercial applications," said David Lambert, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s earth sciences division, which funded the research.
To further increase the size of the crystals, the Carnegie researchers grew gem-quality diamonds sequentially on the six faces of a substrate diamond plate with the CVD process. By this method, three-dimensional growth of colorless single-crystal diamond in the inch-range is achievable.
Finally, new shapes have been fabricated with the blocks of the CVD single crystals. The standard growth rate is 100 micrometers per hour for the Carnegie process, but growth rates in excess of 300 micrometers per hour have been reached, and 1 millimeter per hour may be possible. With the colorless diamond produced at ever higher growth rate and low cost, large blocks of diamond should be available for a variety of applications.
"The diamond age is upon us," said Hemley.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by National Science Foundation.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050527105139.htm
Researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. have produced 10-carat, half-inch thick single-crystal diamonds at rapid growth rates (100 micrometers per hour) using a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process. The size is approximately five times that of commercially available diamonds produced by the standard high-pressure/high-temperature (HPHT) method and other CVD techniques.
In addition, the team has made colorless single-crystal diamonds, transparent from the ultraviolet to infrared wavelengths with their CVD process. Most HPHT synthetic diamond is yellow and most CVD diamond is brown, limiting their optical applications. Colorless diamonds are costly to produce and so far those reported are small. This limits general applications of these diamonds as gems, in optics, and in scientific research. Last year, the Carnegie researchers found that HPHT annealing enhances not only the optical properties of some CVD diamond, but also the hardness. Using new techniques, the Carnegie scientists have now produced transparent diamond using a CVD method without HPHT annealing.
"High-quality crystals more than three carats are very difficult to produce using the conventional approach," said scientist Russell Hemley, who leads the diamond effort at Carnegie. "Several groups have begun to grow diamond single crystals by CVD, but large, colorless, and flawless ones remain a challenge. Our fabrication of 10-carat, half-inch, CVD diamonds is a major breakthrough."
The results were reported at the 10th International Conference on New Diamond Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan, on May 12, 2005, and will be reported at the Applied Diamond Congress in Argonne, Ill., May 18, 2005.
"The rapid synthesis of large, single-crystal diamond is a remarkable scientific achievement, and has implications for a wide range of scientific and commercial applications," said David Lambert, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s earth sciences division, which funded the research.
To further increase the size of the crystals, the Carnegie researchers grew gem-quality diamonds sequentially on the six faces of a substrate diamond plate with the CVD process. By this method, three-dimensional growth of colorless single-crystal diamond in the inch-range is achievable.
Finally, new shapes have been fabricated with the blocks of the CVD single crystals. The standard growth rate is 100 micrometers per hour for the Carnegie process, but growth rates in excess of 300 micrometers per hour have been reached, and 1 millimeter per hour may be possible. With the colorless diamond produced at ever higher growth rate and low cost, large blocks of diamond should be available for a variety of applications.
"The diamond age is upon us," said Hemley.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by National Science Foundation.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050527105139.htm
A Bright Idea For Diamond Miners
(via Gemmology Queensland, Vol.8, Issue 3, March 2007)
A Queensland company is putting more sparkle into the world’s diamond industry with a new device which helps miners recover more the precious stones. Miners normally sift through many tones of ore in order to find small number of diamonds.
Brisbane’s Partition Enterprises is developing a new generation of density and fluorescent tracers which makes finding the stones in the ore much easier. Dr Chris Wood, founder and chief executive of Partition Enterprises, explains than an enormous amount of waste ore has to be processes in the search for diamonds. The processing plants are adjusted to do this by controlling the density and precision of the separation, and that’s what density tracers are used for.
Density tracers, usually small cubes, have carefully controlled densities to mimic the composition of the valuable material the miner wants to recover, as well as waste. Diamonds, for instance, are of much higher density than the waste in which they are found. Density tracers are added to the ore that’s fed into the separator and, after checking which densities reported to diamond concentrate and which to waste, the separation characteristics can be calculated.
If need be, the machinery can then be adjusted to achieve optimal performance. “The alternative is to assess performance by taking large samples from the plant and subjecting them to exhaustive laboratory analyses using toxic liquids,” Dr Wood says.
“Typically these procedures take weeks to generate data. And those data are less reliable than a density tracer test, which can be completed in an hour.” But even after subjecting diamond-bearing material to density separation, the concentration of diamonds is still very low. So fluorescent tracers, which make use of the fact that diamonds glow blue when irradiated with X-rays, are used.
Partition Enterprises’ new tracers glow in the same way and they help calibrate X-ray diamond sorters to minimize any loss of the precious stones. Dr Wood believe his company, which he and colleagues at the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Center in Brisbane began to supply density tracers for the coal industry in 1980, is the world’s major supplier of these devices.
Source: http://www.smartstate.qld.gov.au/
A Queensland company is putting more sparkle into the world’s diamond industry with a new device which helps miners recover more the precious stones. Miners normally sift through many tones of ore in order to find small number of diamonds.
Brisbane’s Partition Enterprises is developing a new generation of density and fluorescent tracers which makes finding the stones in the ore much easier. Dr Chris Wood, founder and chief executive of Partition Enterprises, explains than an enormous amount of waste ore has to be processes in the search for diamonds. The processing plants are adjusted to do this by controlling the density and precision of the separation, and that’s what density tracers are used for.
Density tracers, usually small cubes, have carefully controlled densities to mimic the composition of the valuable material the miner wants to recover, as well as waste. Diamonds, for instance, are of much higher density than the waste in which they are found. Density tracers are added to the ore that’s fed into the separator and, after checking which densities reported to diamond concentrate and which to waste, the separation characteristics can be calculated.
If need be, the machinery can then be adjusted to achieve optimal performance. “The alternative is to assess performance by taking large samples from the plant and subjecting them to exhaustive laboratory analyses using toxic liquids,” Dr Wood says.
“Typically these procedures take weeks to generate data. And those data are less reliable than a density tracer test, which can be completed in an hour.” But even after subjecting diamond-bearing material to density separation, the concentration of diamonds is still very low. So fluorescent tracers, which make use of the fact that diamonds glow blue when irradiated with X-rays, are used.
Partition Enterprises’ new tracers glow in the same way and they help calibrate X-ray diamond sorters to minimize any loss of the precious stones. Dr Wood believe his company, which he and colleagues at the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Center in Brisbane began to supply density tracers for the coal industry in 1980, is the world’s major supplier of these devices.
Source: http://www.smartstate.qld.gov.au/
Diamond Grading Harmonization—New Standards
(via Gem & Jewellery News, Vol. 11, No.4 September 2002) Harry Levy writes:
The International Standards Organization (ISO) papers on diamond grading harmonization have at last been published and been sent to the participating countries to be voted on.
If the vote is passed it means that the world will have an ISO standard for grading diamonds. If it is not passed, then the working group will have to reconvene and it is doubtful if another paper will be published in the near future. It has taken over fifteen years to have reached this stage. Some of those who were involved in the writing of these papers have indicated they will vote against it. How has this state of affairs arisen and how will it affect diamond grading and the diamond trade and all those involved in selling grading certificates with their stones?
Terms for color
Diamonds have been graded for many years for color and clarity. Initially descriptive terms for color, sometimes based on geographical locations, were used. For example, we had ‘white’, ‘tinted’, ‘cape’, ‘wesselton’, ‘river’, ‘light brown’ stones and so on. There was usually local understanding of these terms and how they would be used, but there were no universal agreements. So partners in a firm, local dealers belonging to a diamond bourse or those traveling to, say, South Africa, would understand what a ‘cape series’ was, but this was very much an esoteric language. ‘White’ meant different things to different dealers, and one could rarely buy on the seller’s description only, one had to see the stone. The prominent systems to be used were the ones used in South Africa as a producing country, and consisted of terms ‘wesselton, ‘crystal’, and ‘cape’, with words such as ‘top’ added as a prefix. End users adopted and modified such systems and the above terminology was incorporated into the Scan D N grading system.
A further system was introduced top make the language less esoteric and terms such as ‘white’, ‘tinted’, and ‘brown’ were used with prefixes such as ‘exceptional’, ‘rare’, ‘slightly’ and ‘top’ being used. As an aside, stones sold as ‘blue white’ and ‘premier’ are now referred to as those that have fluorescence.
GIA system
In all its confusion an attempt was made by the GIA to introduce a grading system which was more objective than the subjective methods used. They picked on a certain number of stones of different shades, graded these by comparing them to each other ranging from the purest white (or, more accurately, colorlessness) to shades of pale yellow, gave letters to these stones and referred to them as ‘Master Stones’. They called the highest grade a D color, and graded the rest down using E, F, G and so on. There was a perceivable shade of color between adjacent stones in this series. Thus, a stone which looked more colorless than a G but less colorless than an F, was referred to as an F color.
The letter D was taken to be the best color and this was done, according to the late Richard Liddicoat (for many years Chairman of the GIA), to void confusion with letters already in use such as A, B and C. The systems using these letters had been further modified by using A+, A++, AA, AAA, and so on. D was the failure grade in American schools and as an ‘in joke’ and, on the assumption that D had never been used to denote a color grade, they made this the top color. The trade and public found this to a far less confusing system—they knew the lower the letter the lower was the color.
Clarity terms
On the clarity grading terms such as ‘loupe clean’, ‘very very small inclusions’ (VVS), ‘very small inclusions’ (VS), ‘small inclusions’ (SI), were used and these too were easy to understand. With such a system in place investors discovered diamond as something worth putting their money into and so started the investment market and soon prices began to rise in leaps and bounds. Everyone wanted graded stones and certified diamonds and diamond reports appeared all over the place, with the result that the grading in some of the labs became less and less consistent.
Dangers for the trade
Bodies such as CIBJO saw the danger in this for the trade and tried to introduce some sort of control. They did this recognizing only a certain number of laboratories, the general rule being one per country and preferably recognized by national associations. They too introduced a system of grading diamonds using terms such as ‘white’ and ‘tinted’ as explained above. They had their own set of Master Stones for color grading. It was known that they had been co-operating with the GIA but it was unclear as to how the Master Stones had been obtained. The system they adopted was to give a chart linking their stones to the GIA system, thus ‘exceptional white +’ was D, ‘rare white’ a G and so on.
The main laboratory in Antwerp was the HRD and they too had evolved their own system again using descriptive terms such as ‘white’ with their own sets of master stones. They became the main laboratory in Antwerp serving the diamond industry there through the International Diamond Council (IDC).
Thus in the mid-eighties we had several acceptable systems in operation and the diamond trade, through the encouragement of groups such as the Diamond Trading Company, thought that all those systems should be harmonized. In this way the now international diamond trade would become truly international with all countries speaking the same language in grading diamonds.
ISO Standard drafted
The main groups got together and decided to draw up an ISO Standard. These groups were the GIA, IDC, CIBJO and Scan DN. The standard was to be drafted in two parts, Part 1 to deal with Terminology and Classification. This defined how terms such as those referring to the type of inclusions within a diamond should be used and the color grades, as well as defining different shapes of diamonds. This was ISO/FDIS 11211-1. Part 2 would deal with Test Methods, explaining under what conditions color should be determined, how various measurements would be made and how these would be shown on a report. The points here are of course more numerous than I am stating in this article, but the combined papers should enable a laboratory to grade and produce a report on a diamond and all those using the Standard would produce more or less identical reports.
It was around the time of completion of Part 1 that one of the main participants decided to drop out. This was the GIA. As one who was not involved with the actual working group it is difficult to know exactly why this occurred. Maybe the GIA, considering themselves leaders in the field of diamond grading could see no point in giving their system away to be used by everyone as it was possible that many laboratories using GIA terminology would not necessarily grade to their standards.
Importance of cut
This left Scan DN, CIBJO and IDC in the working group. As I have often said in these articles there is far more in determining the price of a diamond than merely color and clarity. In considering the 4 Cs—carat, clarity, color and cut—most people forget about the cut and it is this that gives the stone its beauty. All grading reports indicate the size of the table and the depth of a stone as a percentage of its width or diameter, but it takes an expert to interpret this.
The IDC indicates the depths of the crown and the pavilion separately and then gives a comment on the proportions of the stones using terms such as ‘good’, ‘very good’ and ‘unusual’. The GIA does not give these comments on proportion but makes general judgments on the symmetry of a stone. This difference led to a compromise being reached two years ago that a proportion comment would be optional.
When the papers were finally published and circulated the IDC claimed that they had understood that proportion comment would be mandatory on all grading reports.
If the IDC wishes are accepted then there are those who feel that the GIA system would fall short of the Standard in that they do not comment on proportion. There are also those countries who have used the GIA system over the years and would not like to see s Standard that somewhat denigrates the system they have used for years and could confuse their public. At the time of writing the vote has not been completed so the result is awaited with interest.
The International Standards Organization (ISO) papers on diamond grading harmonization have at last been published and been sent to the participating countries to be voted on.
If the vote is passed it means that the world will have an ISO standard for grading diamonds. If it is not passed, then the working group will have to reconvene and it is doubtful if another paper will be published in the near future. It has taken over fifteen years to have reached this stage. Some of those who were involved in the writing of these papers have indicated they will vote against it. How has this state of affairs arisen and how will it affect diamond grading and the diamond trade and all those involved in selling grading certificates with their stones?
Terms for color
Diamonds have been graded for many years for color and clarity. Initially descriptive terms for color, sometimes based on geographical locations, were used. For example, we had ‘white’, ‘tinted’, ‘cape’, ‘wesselton’, ‘river’, ‘light brown’ stones and so on. There was usually local understanding of these terms and how they would be used, but there were no universal agreements. So partners in a firm, local dealers belonging to a diamond bourse or those traveling to, say, South Africa, would understand what a ‘cape series’ was, but this was very much an esoteric language. ‘White’ meant different things to different dealers, and one could rarely buy on the seller’s description only, one had to see the stone. The prominent systems to be used were the ones used in South Africa as a producing country, and consisted of terms ‘wesselton, ‘crystal’, and ‘cape’, with words such as ‘top’ added as a prefix. End users adopted and modified such systems and the above terminology was incorporated into the Scan D N grading system.
A further system was introduced top make the language less esoteric and terms such as ‘white’, ‘tinted’, and ‘brown’ were used with prefixes such as ‘exceptional’, ‘rare’, ‘slightly’ and ‘top’ being used. As an aside, stones sold as ‘blue white’ and ‘premier’ are now referred to as those that have fluorescence.
GIA system
In all its confusion an attempt was made by the GIA to introduce a grading system which was more objective than the subjective methods used. They picked on a certain number of stones of different shades, graded these by comparing them to each other ranging from the purest white (or, more accurately, colorlessness) to shades of pale yellow, gave letters to these stones and referred to them as ‘Master Stones’. They called the highest grade a D color, and graded the rest down using E, F, G and so on. There was a perceivable shade of color between adjacent stones in this series. Thus, a stone which looked more colorless than a G but less colorless than an F, was referred to as an F color.
The letter D was taken to be the best color and this was done, according to the late Richard Liddicoat (for many years Chairman of the GIA), to void confusion with letters already in use such as A, B and C. The systems using these letters had been further modified by using A+, A++, AA, AAA, and so on. D was the failure grade in American schools and as an ‘in joke’ and, on the assumption that D had never been used to denote a color grade, they made this the top color. The trade and public found this to a far less confusing system—they knew the lower the letter the lower was the color.
Clarity terms
On the clarity grading terms such as ‘loupe clean’, ‘very very small inclusions’ (VVS), ‘very small inclusions’ (VS), ‘small inclusions’ (SI), were used and these too were easy to understand. With such a system in place investors discovered diamond as something worth putting their money into and so started the investment market and soon prices began to rise in leaps and bounds. Everyone wanted graded stones and certified diamonds and diamond reports appeared all over the place, with the result that the grading in some of the labs became less and less consistent.
Dangers for the trade
Bodies such as CIBJO saw the danger in this for the trade and tried to introduce some sort of control. They did this recognizing only a certain number of laboratories, the general rule being one per country and preferably recognized by national associations. They too introduced a system of grading diamonds using terms such as ‘white’ and ‘tinted’ as explained above. They had their own set of Master Stones for color grading. It was known that they had been co-operating with the GIA but it was unclear as to how the Master Stones had been obtained. The system they adopted was to give a chart linking their stones to the GIA system, thus ‘exceptional white +’ was D, ‘rare white’ a G and so on.
The main laboratory in Antwerp was the HRD and they too had evolved their own system again using descriptive terms such as ‘white’ with their own sets of master stones. They became the main laboratory in Antwerp serving the diamond industry there through the International Diamond Council (IDC).
Thus in the mid-eighties we had several acceptable systems in operation and the diamond trade, through the encouragement of groups such as the Diamond Trading Company, thought that all those systems should be harmonized. In this way the now international diamond trade would become truly international with all countries speaking the same language in grading diamonds.
ISO Standard drafted
The main groups got together and decided to draw up an ISO Standard. These groups were the GIA, IDC, CIBJO and Scan DN. The standard was to be drafted in two parts, Part 1 to deal with Terminology and Classification. This defined how terms such as those referring to the type of inclusions within a diamond should be used and the color grades, as well as defining different shapes of diamonds. This was ISO/FDIS 11211-1. Part 2 would deal with Test Methods, explaining under what conditions color should be determined, how various measurements would be made and how these would be shown on a report. The points here are of course more numerous than I am stating in this article, but the combined papers should enable a laboratory to grade and produce a report on a diamond and all those using the Standard would produce more or less identical reports.
It was around the time of completion of Part 1 that one of the main participants decided to drop out. This was the GIA. As one who was not involved with the actual working group it is difficult to know exactly why this occurred. Maybe the GIA, considering themselves leaders in the field of diamond grading could see no point in giving their system away to be used by everyone as it was possible that many laboratories using GIA terminology would not necessarily grade to their standards.
Importance of cut
This left Scan DN, CIBJO and IDC in the working group. As I have often said in these articles there is far more in determining the price of a diamond than merely color and clarity. In considering the 4 Cs—carat, clarity, color and cut—most people forget about the cut and it is this that gives the stone its beauty. All grading reports indicate the size of the table and the depth of a stone as a percentage of its width or diameter, but it takes an expert to interpret this.
The IDC indicates the depths of the crown and the pavilion separately and then gives a comment on the proportions of the stones using terms such as ‘good’, ‘very good’ and ‘unusual’. The GIA does not give these comments on proportion but makes general judgments on the symmetry of a stone. This difference led to a compromise being reached two years ago that a proportion comment would be optional.
When the papers were finally published and circulated the IDC claimed that they had understood that proportion comment would be mandatory on all grading reports.
If the IDC wishes are accepted then there are those who feel that the GIA system would fall short of the Standard in that they do not comment on proportion. There are also those countries who have used the GIA system over the years and would not like to see s Standard that somewhat denigrates the system they have used for years and could confuse their public. At the time of writing the vote has not been completed so the result is awaited with interest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)