Why the change?

1. The FTC’s updated jewelry guidelines
2. Formal complaints received by GIA’s compliance team
3. The public, which GIA serves, have clearly abandoned the term synthetic:

New name, same censorship

While GIA did change the name of their reports, GIA did not change its policy of withholding information from the reports.

For over a decade, GIA has graded lab diamonds on the exact same 4Cs criteria as mined diamonds, recorded those precise gradings in GIA’s database, and withheld the information from the public by removing key grading details from their synthetic diamond reports.

Thus, two very different quality lab diamonds (say G SI1 & J SI2) will still receive the exact same GIA report, despite clear and obvious differences in quality to even an untrained eye.

To explain the chart above — if a diamond came out of the earth, the GIA grading is determined, entered into a database, and then printed on the GIA report.

If the diamond is created in a laboratory above the earth, the GIA grading is determined, recorded in the database, censored, and then printed on the report:

D, E, or F color diamonds receive a Colorless grade on the report.
G, H, I, or J color diamonds receive a Near Colorless grade on the report.

SI1 or SI2 clarity diamonds receive a Slightly Included grading.
VS1 or VS2 clarity diamonds receive a Very Slightly Included grading.
VVS1 or VVS2 clarity diamonds receive Very, Very Slightly Included.

That’s a serious accusation against a non-profit that claims to be independent — what’s your proof?

My proof is not anonymous sources or leaked documents. My proof is GIA’s own publicly available academic journal, Gems & Gemology. Below are a few examples of GIA’s full fidelity gradings of lab diamonds.

• Observations on CVD-Grown Synthetic Diamonds: A Review | Gems & Gemology
• Observations on HPHT-Grown Synthetic Diamonds: A Review | Gems & Gemology
• Large Colorless HPHT-Grown Synthetic Gem Diamonds from New Diamond Technology, Russia | Gems & Gemology

Still don’t believe me?

On GIA’s official YouTube channel, a senior GIA employee clearly explains that GIA is grading CVD diamonds with full fidelity:

“We can look at the clarity features and clarity grades [of CVD diamonds]. Most of them are in the VVS2 to VS1 range. We do see some at the extremes of IF to I2.”

Okay, you’ve proved that GIA is censoring their laboratory-grown diamond reports… So what?

You’re delusional (or paid by the Diamond Producers’ Association) if you believe that no one in the public desires a GIA grading of lab diamonds.

GIA’s censorship harms the public’s ability to evaluate the quality of lab diamonds.

GIA’s censorship harms the public’s ability to re-sell lab diamonds.

GIA’s censorship harms the public’s faith in lab diamonds.

GIA’s censorship harms the public.

­­­­­­Why should lab diamond grading reports have less transparency than the grading reports for natural diamonds? Is it GIA’s position that natural diamonds are more deserving of a grading report with more accurate information than lab grown diamonds?

If GIA believes that natural diamonds are worthy of a full 4Cs, but ‘artificial’ crystals of carbon are not worthy, why does GIA grade treated diamonds with a full 4Cs?

Much to the chagrin of the lab diamond haters out there, lab diamonds do have a resale market and value. My company (among others) buy lab diamonds from the public, and a consumer’s ability to re-sell a lab diamond is dependent on accurate and transparent grading. The amount for which a consumer can sell a D VS1 versus an F VS2 is obviously different.

Does the public really want full fidelity Lab Diamond Grading Reports from GIA?

It’s undeniable that a rapidly growing portion of the public is choosing lab diamonds over mined diamonds.

I’m the CEO of a lab diamond jewelry retailer. Our sales team gets asked about GIA certification of man-made diamonds.

Every.
Single.
Day.

We have disappointed many when we try to explain GIA’s inexplicable censorship.

Of course, De Beers and some portion of the public believe that GIA should not grade lab diamonds; however, GIA does not serve the mined diamond industry, nor does GIA serve some portion of the public.

The GIA Mission Statement does not read “to ensure some of the public’s trust in some gems.”

Tom Moses recently told Rob Bates that GIA’s 85-year-old mission is “to make sure the public knows what it’s getting.”

Tom — how are you fulfilling GIA’s mission by censoring information so that a G SI1 and a J SI2 lab diamond receive the same grading?

Why does GIA censor lab diamond reports?

Dr. James Shigley, senior GIA researcher, is crystal clear as to why GIA chose a policy of censorship:

“When these reports were introduced, there was a range of opinion in the trade about GIA grading synthetic diamonds.”

Furthermore, both Susan Jacques (GIA’s CEO) and Stephen Morisseau (GIA’s Director of Communications) have admitted to me that there are “glaring inconsistencies” in GIA’s grading policies but GIA is too risk adverse to make changes that jeopardize the (significant) revenue that GIA receives from the mined diamond trade.

I’m sure that GIA will continue to reiterate the same tired excuses for why they censor lab diamond reports, but none of their logic stands up to a modicum of critical thinking or scientific reason.

Who does GIA serve? The trade, or the public?

GIA is explicitly clear in its Mission Statement, Code of Conduct, and IRS non-profit filings that GIA serves to ensure the public trust in gems and jewelry. In other words, GIA serves you, the consumer, a member of the public.

GIA does not serve the trade. Thus, ‘a range of opinions in the trade’ is not an appropriate justification for GIA’s decision to withhold information from the public, especially given how prominently GIA claims its independence:

“To truly be the foremost authority in gemology, we must always be an impartial, independent organization. No matter what other changes may come to GIA, we will always be steadfast in our commitment to lead with integrity and the highest ethical standards.” — GIA CEO Susan Jacques

GIA’s lab diamond censorship is *not* independent from the trade.

GIA’s lab diamond censorship is *not* a service to the public.

Could GIA’s refusal to release gradings jeopardize their non-profit status?

Yes.

The IRS states that “A 501(c)(3) organization’s activities should be directed exclusively toward some exempt purpose. Its activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization more than insubstantially. The intent of a 501(c) (3) organization is to ensure it serves a public interest, not a private one.”

Withholding lab diamond grading information substantially serves the private interests of the mined diamond industry, not public interests.

Is GIA’s refusal to release the gradings illegal?

Yes.

Why?

It is irrefutable that GIA developed the 4Cs as the standard of diamond quality around the world to evaluate the color, clarity, and cutting standards that are used worldwide to evaluate every diamond — both mined or grown.

It is irrefutable that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 prohibits activities that restrict competition in the marketplace, especially for standard-setting organizations.

Thus, it is illegal for GIA, as a standard setting organization, to discriminate against lab diamonds by refusing to release accurate grading reports merely because the diamond did not originate beneath the earth.

Is it ethical and impartial for GIA to withhold grading information from the public?

No.

When will GIA respond to a formal Concern Report?

Nine months ago, I submitted a formal Concern Report that raises the issues above via GIA’s clearly defined concern reporting mechanism.

GIA’s Code of Conduct claims that GIA will promptly investigate all concerns and complaints thoroughly and fairly; however, I am still waiting for any substantive response to my concerns, almost a year later.

Thus, I am publicly releasing my concern (which you can read here) and calling for GIA’s Board of Governors to immediately launch an investigation into why GIA is #1) continuing to withhold gemological information from the public and #2) why GIA has yet to substantively respond to a formal concern, both of which are in violation of GIA’s Code of Conduct.

Those responsible for these Code of Conduct violations should be held accountable by the GIA Board of Governors, as the violations are a breach of fiduciary duty of GIA’s Board of Directors (Duty of Obedience).

If GIA stopped withholding lab diamond information from the public, what would happen?

Today, GIA is blind to many of the latest developments in both HPHT and CVD diamond growth, as there is no incentive for a diamond grower to send diamonds to GIA to receive substandard grading reports.

Changing the name of the report will do little to better expose GIA’s researchers to lab diamonds.

However, if GIA were to simply release the very information they have been actively withholding from the public, GIA would immediately receive thousands of lab diamonds for analysis and grading.

GIA’s researchers, educators, and students would all benefit. GIA could learn more about lab diamond gemstones in a month or two than they have learned in the last few years, which would greatly improve GIA ability to best serve the public.

The public that desires lab diamonds will be better served by GIA.
The public that does not desire lab diamonds will be better served by GIA.

Yes, the mined diamond industry (and their $100m+ lobbying arm) would certainly hem and haw; however, the squawking from the mined diamond industry would die down logarithmically.

On the other hand, the benefits to researchers, educators, students, and the public would continue to compound exponentially.

Could GIA stop its censorship by July 1st?

GIA could end it’s censorship by merely printing one letter (Color) and one number (Clarity) on the new GIA Laboratory-Grown Diamond Reports. GIA is already determining these letters and numbers, so GIA only needs to change a few simple settings on its database and printers.

The new reports launch in 30 days. Surely, GIA’s Board of Directors could meet in the next few weeks and authorize these simple changes…

…if GIA truly serves the public.

GIA — if you really are an organization of integrity, independence, and impartiality, then prove it.

Stop withholding information from the public.

Last week, a Tiffany & Co. executive weighed in on the lab diamond debate:

“Our position is lab-grown diamonds are not a luxury material. We don’t see a role for them in a luxury brand. They have their use and they have their place, but I think luxury consumers will continue to desire the rarity and amazing story of natural diamonds.” — Andy Hart, SVP of Tiffany & Co.

Dear Andy,

Hi —I’m reaching out to explain why your viewpoint about lab diamonds is incorrect. To introduce myself, I’m the CEO of Ada Diamonds, a luxury lab diamond brand that you don’t believe to be possible.

I highly encourage you to reconsider your position, as your risk-averse view of lab diamonds will age as well as Microsoft’s 2007 view of the iPhone:

Why am I so confident you’re wrong about lab diamonds?

No amount of spending from the Diamond Producers Association, De Beers, or Tiffany’s can change the fact that once a luxury consumer embraces a product of the future, they rarely desire relics of the past.

My average sale price is 3x higher than Tiffany’s [Footnote #1] and I’m far more worried about supply than consumer demand [Footnote #2].

My clients are steadfast in their belief that lab diamonds are the epitome of modern luxury, with most proudly evangelizing the superiority of ‘cultured’ diamonds over ‘dirt’ diamonds.

Thus, I confidently predict that your employer, LVMH, Richemont, Kering, Swatch, and/or Graff will proudly sell lab diamonds by 2025. Here’s why:

The Disaster of Climate Change is Too Real

While the luxury consumer of the past only asked what the item cost ($$$), the luxury consumer of the future asks what the item really costs (the negative externalities of the product).

In other words, today’s high earners that are not rich yet (HENRYs), absolutely care about sustainability, and I’m guessing that Tiffany’s cares deeply about HENRYs.

Tiffany’s public stance on climate change is “We’re still in for bold climate action… The disaster of climate change is too real, and the threat to our planet and to our children is too great.”

Your employer is correct — climate change is a looming disaster, and the burning of millions of gallons of diesel fuel to dig diamonds out of massive holes in the Earth exacerbates the looming disaster.

Thus, if Tiffany & Co. *genuinely* cared about the ‘disaster of climate change,’ it would not call out politicians; it would call diamond mining what it is: an unnecessary evil that permanently damages the Earth while contributing megatonnes of CO2 to our atmosphere.

The Future of Luxury Doesn’t Cost the Earth.

The inconvenient truth is that Tiffany’s mined diamonds are not, as you say, an ‘amazing story.’ They are a sad story of resource extraction that costs the planet, people, and animals.

While known origin is undoubtedly better than unknown origin, your new transparency initiative doesn’t change the fact that Tiffany’s purchases diamonds from sources that:

• pollute pristine Canadian rivers with carcinogens
• strip mine the ocean floor with machines nicknamed ‘the Butcher’,
• require blasting mile-wide holes in the Earth:

Lab Diamonds are Sustainable.

While large-scale diamond mines will always require diesel and dynamite, diamond growing merely requires the sun, the wind, and abundantly available carbon.

Much like Google, Facebook, and Amazon locate their server farms where there is abundant renewable energy available, diamond farms are being built where there is abundant renewable energy available.

Why? Not only is it responsible to place diamond/server farms where there is renewable energy, it’s also economical: electricity near large renewable energy power plants is some of the cheapest power in the world.

The Diamond Producers Association likes to throw stones at lab diamonds, claiming they’re coal-fired energy hogs. Some data to disprove the DPA’s straw-grasping argument:

Today, the most efficient producers of diamonds require approx. 250kwh of electricity to grow a 1-carat lab diamond, which is the same amount of electricity the average U.S. household uses in 8.7 days, or the electricity to fully charge a Tesla 2.5 times.

In fact, most of the lab diamonds gemstones produced today permanently convert the worst greenhouse gas on Earth (methane) into stunning diamonds:

Lab Diamonds are Not Merely Sustainable —They’re Superior.

Setting aside externalities for a moment, lab diamonds are objectively superior gemstones than mined diamonds. Both are crystals of carbon, but diamonds grown by mankind are higher purity, lower strain crystals that have superior fire, brilliance, and scintillation.

GIA researchers describe the quality differences as follows: mined diamonds are subjected to many stresses during their long growth and transport history. In contrast, HPHT lab diamonds are grown in a uniform high-pressure field. Thus, most mined diamonds display higher-order interference colors, whereas lab diamonds tend to display uniform, featureless birefringence and superior light performance.

Diamonds are an outlier in the world of gemstones where the value of the (colorless, not fancy colored) diamond is driven by the purity of the diamond.

Columbian Emeralds, Burmese Rubies, and Sri Lankan Sapphires all have specific defects that define their color and increase their desirability. That’s not the case with mined diamonds, and that’s why luxury consumers don’t want Namibian Diamonds, Botswanan Diamonds, or Russian Diamonds. Luxury consumers want D color diamonds, regardless of origin.

Lab Diamonds are Not Merely Sustainable — They’re a Paragon of Human Achievement, Improving Lives Around the World.

While Tiffany’s ‘dirt diamonds’ undoubtedly cost the Earth, lab diamonds increasingly improve humanity in a plethora of medical, scientific, computational, and manufacturing applications.

Here are a few of my favorite applications of man-made diamonds:

• Lab diamonds help infertile couples have babies and provide superior scalpels to eye surgeons.
• Lab diamonds not only detect early-stage cancer, they also better treat cancer with fewer side-effects.
• Lab diamonds break down the highly-toxic ‘forever’ chemicals that pollute the water in Michigan.
• Lab diamonds make planes, trains, automobiles, and wind turbines more efficient.
• Lab diamonds are the future of computers and the future of the internet.

Diamonds are Forever. So is Being Wrong.

Andy — To close out, on your website, you proclaim that “behind the luster and renown of Tiffany & Co. is a moving story of risk-taking, thrilling discoveries and staunch dedication to quality.” If that’s really the definition of your luster, why isn’t Tiffany & Co. taking a risk and using superior quality diamonds?

I kindly ask you to reconsider your view of lab diamonds, as I believe your current position will quickly join the ranks of viewpoints such as:

“The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks.” — Matthew Lynn, Bloomberg, 2007.

“She doesn’t wear fur because she is cold, she wears fur because she is glamorous.” — Ken Downing, Neiman Marcus VP.

“The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty. A fad.” — A bank President’s advice to not to invest in Ford Motor Co, 1903.

“Electric Cars Are an Extraordinarily Bad Idea.” — Forbes in 2011.

“Tesla is great, but you’ve got plenty of well-established brands that mean luxury, like Porsche or Mercedes-Benz…Mercedes will attract more buyers than Tesla because of its extensive dealer network and its ability to cater to luxury consumers with a complete luxury experience” — Steve Cannon, Head of Mercedes USA, 2014.

Respectfully,

Jason Payne
Co-Founder & CEO
Ada Diamonds

Footnote #1 — our average sale price is 3x higher than Tiffany & Co.

Doing some basic math on your latest detailed financials, Tiffany’s average sale price (ASP) across all jewelry was $2,391. Ada Diamonds’ ASP across all jewelry? $7,300. Your ASP on engagement rings and wedding bands was $3,400. Mine? $8,300.

I don’t offer you the data above to brag about my business, I offer it to illuminate the rapidly growing demand for high-end jewelry made with cultivated diamonds.

But… Lightbox…

I readily acknowledge that there are non-luxury retailers of lab diamonds, who mass produce cheap jewelry in low-cost countries with unexceptional lab diamonds.

That being said, if you choose to define my brand by the dregs of my industry, shouldn’t you also define your brand by discount retailers such as Walmart and QVC?

Let’s compare apples to apples — it’s significantly cheaper to buy mined diamond studs from Walmart than it is to buy them from the absolute cheapest lab diamond retailer:

Footnote #2 — I’ll be real with you. Lab diamonds are rare.

Today’s news cycles may lead you to believe that repeating an ‘alternative fact’ over and over again can turn it into a fact. But facts are facts.

The real fact-of-the-matter is that high-quality lab diamonds between 2 to 5 carats are quite rare, and lab diamonds of decent quality are far more expensive than $800/ct.

I’m currently seeking millions of dollars of oval lab diamonds between 3–5 carats. The supply to meet my demand does not yet exist.

Don’t believe me? Let’s turn to the real diamond experts from Bain. Thrice in their 2018 state of the industry report, they discuss the gap between supply and demand:

We believe [lab diamond] manufacturing capacity will be a major limiting factor in the short to medium term.

In the short to medium term, growth of lab-grown diamonds will be limited by manufacturing capacity, access to technology and intellectual property, and availability of funding.

Production capacity will limit lab-grown market growth in the short to medium term.

Don’t believe Bain? Do you believe Dr. Shigley, esteemed GIA researcher?

Synthetic diamonds continue to be rare.

Why are lab diamonds so rare? The American consumer, not the mined diamond lobby, determines the future of luxury, and the real truth is that demand from American consumers is growing faster than diamond growers can keep up.

That’s why private equity firms are making large investments in diamond growers, that’s why diamond growers are raising prices, and that’s why De Beers admitted defeat after spending over $100m on the DPA to fight the threat of synthetics.

You are currently investing $699 million USD in two separate projects to expand your diamond production — a $94m factory to grow cultured diamonds for Lightbox, and a $605m strip mining vessel, nicknamed ‘The Butcher’ by your own employees.

I Believe it is Your Moral and Fiduciary Duty to Cancel the Strip-Mining Vessel and Instead Invest the $699m in a ‘Lightbox Gigafactory’

Why? Compared to a butchering vessel, a diamond growth facility will
generate more profit, employ more people, and have a significantly smaller environmental footprint. In other words, it’s better for your shareholders, your employees, and the Earth.

If the gigafactory was located near one of the African diamond mines that you are closing in the next few years, it would provide high-quality jobs to current De Beers employees and contractors that will otherwise soon be looking for jobs:

“If De Beers is saying they are going to open factories here in South Africa to manufacture and beneficiate these synthetic diamonds, then we are going to support that,” said Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union general secretary, Jeff Mphahlele, “That in my view would create more jobs.”

If De Beers Grows Millions of Carats, Will They Sell? Absolutely.

Laboratory-grown diamonds will quickly rise to take at least 10% of the global diamond jewelry market, according to Morgan Stanley, Citi, and Bain. Thus, annual sales of lab diamond jewelry will quickly top $10 billion USD.

As the CEO of Ada Diamonds, I’ve sold millions of dollars of lab diamonds and partnered with the most iconic luxury brands in the world. I can say for certain that man-made diamonds are enthusiastically accepted by educated, sophisticated clients around the world, despite $100m+ lobbying and marketing campaigns to fight synthetics.

If De Beers were to build a diamond gigafactory, there is certainly enough demand for the entire production. Some diamonds could be sold by Lightbox, and other diamonds could be sold to ‘Lightholders,’ a new generation of De Beers Sightholders that would polish the diamonds into beautiful gemstones to be sold by retailers around the world.

Your Lightbox Gambit & Recommended Next Move

If lab vs mined diamonds is a game of chess, I’m guessing you view Lightbox is a gambit: an opening move in which a player, more often White, sacrifices material, usually a pawn, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position. As you plan your next moves in the game, here’s three important observations to consider:

#1) Diamonds are new again & purchasers become proud evangelists

Many of my clients become vocal ambassadors of the product, encouraging all of their friends and coworkers to eschew ‘dirt diamonds’ and choose lab created diamonds instead.

There is no amount of money you can spend to convince those ambassadors that a lab diamond is not a real diamond. Many of my clients proudly proclaim to us that they will never buy a mined diamond again.

#2) Consumer acceptance is growing at breakneck speed

According to the Knot’s 2017 Engagement Ring Survey, 25% of US couples considered lab diamonds, a 56% increase from 2015. In that same time period, De Beers, ALROSA, Rio Tinto, and other diamond miners invested $133m in the Diamond Producers’ Association to fight synthetics.

Imagine the potential growth rate of lab diamonds if millions were invested to promote the future of fine jewelry, instead of well capitalized efforts to fight the future.

#3) Iconic luxury brands are quickly adopting lab diamonds

With increasing frequency, iconic brands are embracing cultured diamonds. My company has worked with multiple luxury brands on special collections, functional accessories, and complementary jewelry.

Make a Bold Move — Double Down on the Future of Fine Jewelry

I implore you, De Beers leadership, to make a truly bold move — abandon your $605m investment in unsustainable strip mining and instead invest in truly sustainable luxury. The business model is superior, the demand is sufficient, and a diamond gigafactory in Namibia would be better for Namibians than another Butcher.

Sincerely,
Jason Payne
Founder and CEO
Ada Diamonds

PS- I’m speaking at the GIA Symposium next month, and I know many of you are attending/speaking as well. I’m happy to discuss further at the symposium.

The Butchering of the Namibian Seafloor

95 million carats have been mined from the deserts and beaches of Namibia since diamonds were discovered in 1908. In over a century of mining, most Namibian diamond deposits have been bled dry, leaving abandoned ghost towns behind.

In order to keep diamonds flowing from Namibia, De Beers has transitioned to offshore mining, using enormous dredging robots to mine the ocean floor:

Anglo American ZA on Twitter

Using an improved crawler, @DeBeersGroup's Mafuta vessel increased mining rate by 26% - part of Debmarine Namibia.

Nicknamed “The Butcher” by De Beers staff, the 280-tonne dredger carves a 21m swathe through the seabed, sucking up up 60 tonnes of seafloor per hour. The seafloor is then pumped up to the ship where it is processed to extract the diamonds and then the butchered seafloor is dumped overboard.

Today, the ocean mining arm of De Beers operates five diamond mining vessels in Namibian waters. The vessels combined to extract 1.17 million carats of diamonds in 2016, worth $585 million USD.

What is the Environmental Impact of the Butchers?

“You can’t get away from it, it does have an environmental impact.”
-Jan Nel, Head of Operations for Debmarine (De Beers’ marine subsidiary)

“They are clearly trashing areas and killing a whole load of animals.”
-Professor Charles Griffiths, marine biologist at the University of Cape

Meet the Next Butcher

De Beers recently commissioned the construction of their largest strip mining vessel yet. At 577', the vessel will be longer than a New York-class battleship and almost as long as an Independence-class aircraft carrier.

The vessel is under construction in Norway, and is predicted to start mining the ocean floor by 2021. The cost of the bare vessel is $173 million USD, and the mining equipment will cost an additional $432 million USD.

Why a Gigafactory is a Better Investment

De Beers recently broke ground on a $94m USD facility in Oregon to grow lab diamonds for Lightbox Jewelry, a De Beers owned lab diamond fashion jewelry brand launching later this year. The facility will produce 500,000 carats per year and generate approximately $160m USD annually:

Lightbox Jewelry on Twitter

Broke ground today at the new Element Six factory in Gresham, OR that will produce 500k carats of rough diamonds per year for #lightboxjewelry #lightboxlabgrown @PortOfPortland

Thus, if De Beers chose to instead invest $605m USD to build six identical $94m facilities to grow diamonds (or one gigafactory), De Beers could grow millions of carats of diamonds annually and generate roughly a billion dollars of revenue per year, whereas the butchering vessel will generate roughly half that revenue.

Namibia is the ideal location for a gigafactory, for three important reasons:

#1) Namibia is a fantastic location to generate both solar and wind power. It averages 300 days of direct sunlight per year and has some of the strongest and most consistent winds in the Southern hemisphere. Thus, De Beers could make the grown diamonds truly sustainable by choosing to utilize renewable energy to power the factory.

#2) The diamond gigafactory and renewable power plant could be built on already butchered land, minimizing the environmental impact of the gigafactory and power plant.

#3) De Beers is planning to close multiple Namibian diamond mines in the next few years, and the staff of the shuttered diamond mines could be ideal employees for the gigafactory.

A Gigafactory = More Jobs than a Butcher

De Beers would create far more jobs in Namibia building and operating a diamond growth facility versus staffing a diamond mining vessel.

De Beers’ entire ocean mining operation, Debmarine Namibia, employs only 900 people and the new $600m vessel will only employ 130 people when it’s operational.

On the other hand, I believe it would take a minimum of 250 people to run a renewable power plant and diamond gigafactory.

Furthermore, the vessel is being constructed in Norway, so the surge of construction jobs are in Northern Europe. If a gigfactory were built instead, the construction jobs would benefit the the people of Namibia (per capita GDP: $11,528) instead of Norwegians (per capita GDP: $70,590).

Lastly, there are 13,700 Namibians employed in the fishing industry. I can’t imagine strip mining up to 3,700 square miles of seafloor has have anything but a negative effect on the Namibian fishing industry.

During #MontereyCarWeek2018, Koenigsegg Motors delivered a stunning diamond key fob to @lamborghiniks, the proud owner of a 1,360 horsepower Agera XS. If you’re not familiar with the Agera, it’s the fastest production car in the world, recently recording a top speed of 284.55 mph (457.94 km/h) on a (closed) public road in Nevada.

The key is made from 10.75 ounces (305 grams) of 18k gold and 702 lab grown diamonds weighing over 5.5 carats. The diamonds are hand set into the family crest of Christian von Koenigsegg, the namesake Founder of Koengisegg Automotive.

The pictures below step through the entire fabrication process.

This is not the first time that Ada Diamonds has supported Koenigsegg Automotive. In 2016, we had the privilege of fabricating a nameplate for ‘Naraya,’ a stunning Agera finished in blue carbon fiber and gold. The nameplate featured 155 yellow diamonds set in 18kt yellow gold.

Among the many reasons that we love working with Christian von Koenigsegg is his deep commitment to both sustainability and performance. While he’s best known for his world beating hypercars, we believe his Freevalve technology will dramatically reduce emissions and fossil fuel consumption in millions of vehicles around the world in the decades ahead.

About Ada Diamonds

Ada Diamonds is a leading luxury purveyor of lab diamonds, specializing in one-of-a-kind, bespoke bridal and fashion jewelry. Learn More.

Ada Diamonds has been commissioned by luxury brands to set diamonds in the interiors of supercars, design high jewelry and brilliant accessories, and support exclusive events for the most discerning customers in the world. Learn More.

Originally published at www.adadiamonds.com.

The FTC’s decision resoundingly rejected the arguments of De Beers’ lobbyists, and instead chose to side with science on the definition of a diamond — A crystal of carbon, regardless of subterrestrial or superterrestrial origin.

I applaud the FTC for their chemically accurate, linguistically correct, and well thought out changes to their guidelines. Here’s the TL;DR of the 161 pages released by the FTC today:

#1) A Diamond is no Longer Natural. Both Mined and Laboratory-Grown Diamonds are Diamonds.

Here’s the old FTC definition of a diamond: A diamond is a NATURAL mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system.

Here’s the FTC’s new definition: A diamond is a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system.

The FTC justified their change as follows: 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.

The distinctions between these lab-created diamonds and mined stones are addressed elsewhere in the Guides. Because it is no longer correct to define diamonds as “natural,” the final Guides do not include “natural” in the diamond definition.

Given the FTC’s new guidance, the Diamond Producers’ Association might consider changing their slogan from ‘Real is a Diamond’ to ‘A Crystal of Carbon is a Diamond, Regardless of Origin.’

#2) Love to Slander ‘Synthetics?’ Tread Carefully…

For those of you in the diamond industry that love to cheapen man-made diamonds by calling them synthetics… *cough* Jean Marc *cough* Martin *cough*… I encourage you to read the FTC’s new guidelines carefully:

The record indicates many consumers mistakenly believe “synthetic” means an artificial product such as cubic zirconia, which lacks a diamond’s optical, physical, and chemical properties. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion, the final Guides do not include “synthetic” among the examples of terms that marketers may non-deceptively use to qualify claims about man-made diamonds, thus eliminating the contradiction […] If a marketer uses “synthetic” to imply that a competitor’s lab-grown diamond is not an actual diamond, however, this would be deceptive.

Furthermore, synthetic is a scientifically inaccurate term for a man-made diamond. Why? You cannot synthesize an element:

There is no such thing as synthetic gold
There is no such thing as synthetic platinum
There is no such thing as synthetic carbon
There is no such thing as synthetic diamond

#3) A Laboratory-Grown Diamond is a Gemstone.

In a move eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s famous novel ‘1984’, the mined diamond industry has, in the past, successfully lobbied the FTC to ban multiple words from the lab diamond lexicon. These previously banned words included gem, gemstone, stone, real, genuine, and even birthstone!

In a victory for reason, the FTC reversed their Newspeak ban on many of these words, calling their previous guidelines “circular, inadequate guidance that relied on highly subjective judgments.”

The new guidance from the FTC is that a man-made diamond gemstone is, in fact, a gem:

The Commission extends the increased flexibility in its new guidance addressing cultured diamonds to the guidance for other man-made gemstones. Specifically, the final Guides advise marketers of man-made gemstones sharing the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the named stone that they may use words or phrases immediately preceding the gemstone name other than the ones listed (“laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “synthetic”) if they clearly and conspicuously disclose that the product is not a mined stone.

#4) A Lab Diamond is a Cultured Diamond.

Of all the words that the mined diamond lobby has sought to ban, ‘cultured’ has been enemy #1. Unfortunately for the mined diamond lobby, the FTC ruled against them, contending that the word ‘cultured’ can be used to…

describe laboratory-created diamonds that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds if the term is qualified by a clear and conspicuous disclosure (for example, the words “laboratory-created,” “laboratory-grown,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or some other word or phrase of like meaning) conveying that the product is not a mined stone.

Why is the mined diamond lobby so resistant to “cultured”? Much like the concept of cultured pearls has been widely adopted and accepted by mainstream consumers as simply “pearls,” lab grown/cultured diamonds are headed in the same direction.

#5) Cubic Zirconias, Diamond Simulants, and Diamond Hybrids are not Diamonds.

Much to the chagrin of companies that sell diamond simulants, the FTC has asserted clear delineation between laboratory created diamonds and those cheap diamond simulants:

It is unfair or deceptive to use the word ‘‘laboratory-grown,’’ ‘‘laboratory-created,’’ ‘‘[manufacturer name]-created,’’ ‘‘synthetic,’’ or other word or phrase of like meaning with the name of any natural stone to describe any industry product unless such product has essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the stone named.

It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “composite diamond,” “hybrid diamond,” or “manufactured diamond,” unless the term is qualified to disclose clearly and conspicuously that the product: (A) does not have the same characteristics as the named stone; and (B) requires special care. It is further recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser.

I imagine the developers at Diamond Nexus Labs and MiaDonna will be working overtime this week to amend their web sites to be compliant with the FTC’s new guidelines.

My company, Ada Diamonds, purchases laboratory grown diamonds from the general public. On a daily basis, we receive solicitations from consumers seeking to sell diamond hybrids, diamond simulants, or cubic zirconias; materials these consumers genuinely believe are lab grown diamonds.

Many of these individuals have been defrauded by eCommerce companies that dupe the public into thinking that they have purchased a diamond. These unethical companies even accompany their cubic zirconias and diamond hybrids with dubious grading reports from questionable organizations such as the American International Gemologists.

I extend my public thanks to the FTC for an excellent piece of regulation that protects the consumer from unethical actors in the jewelry industry.

[Here’s the mined diamond and the grown diamond]

No corporation, no matter how large, can resist the demands of the U.S. consumer. Even De Beers, producer of the most successful marketing campaign of all time, recently bowed to the rapid acceptance of laboratory-grown diamonds by today’s sophisticated, educated customer.

For years, De Beers, as well as other diamond miners, aggressively fought lab diamonds, investing $133 million dollars in the Diamond Producers Association to decry synthetics; however, De Beers just announced they will reverse their long-standing position and sell lab diamond jewelry via a new subsidiary, Lightbox Jewelry.

Cosmopolitan consumers were able to successfully demand change in a centuries-old industry that is overwhelmingly resistant to modernization.

Media reactions to the Lightbox Jewelry launch were quite sensational with headlines such as “De Beers Admits Defeat Over Lab Diamonds,” “Diamonds Aren’t Forever,” “Is De Beers Embracing Self-Cannibalization?” and “De Beers Drops an ‘Atom Bomb’ on the Lab Diamond Industry.’

Despite these audacious headlines, multiple media outlets have printed misleading claims by De Beers.

A Fact Check of the Lightbox Launch

Fake News: A 1-carat lab diamond is $800

As of this writing, Lightbox is not offering nor previewing a single piece of jewelry with a 1-carat diamond. The closest offering is this pendant necklace with four diamonds that combine to 1 carat total weight.

Both mined diamonds and lab grown diamonds are exponentially expensive as they grow in size, thus it is apples to oranges to compare the price of multiple diamonds to a single diamond. For example, these Lightbox earrings with 34 diamonds that add up to 1/2 carat *should* be priced much lower than a solitaire necklace with a single half carat diamond.

Fake News: A Lightbox Jewelry diamond is 81% cheaper than a mined diamond.

Based on the De Beers claims, Bloomberg published this chart claiming that “one-carat-stones” from Lightbox are 81% cheaper than mined diamonds, despite the fact that Lightbox does not sell one-carat-stones. Fake News! Sad!

Given Lightbox’s deliberate down-market positioning and choice of silver and low-purity gold for Lightbox Jewelry, it’s worth comparing Lightbox pricing to mined diamond jewelry sold by Walmart, Macys, and Costco — all at very similar price points.

Fake News: All Lab Diamonds are the same and don’t need grading

The world’s leading gemological lab, GIA, recently released data on all of the lab grown diamonds they have graded and there are clearly differences in quality across the 4Cs.

Just like mined diamonds, lab diamonds vary significantly in quality, and independent grading and certification is a key part of consumer protection and satisfaction.

By not disclosing the approximate color and clarity of the lab grown diamonds they are using, Lightbox signals that the pieces will likely feature low color and included stones, similar in quality to natural diamond mall jewelry. The prominent use of irradiation and annealing of the stones into pinks and turquoise is also a strong indicator of poor quality gems requiring a post-growth improvement.

So what would a high-quality 1 carat synthetic diamond from De Beers really cost?

Turns out we can get a good idea on the price of a 1 carat lab diamond from De Beers, as they sell plates of diamonds, roughly the size of a 1ct diamond gemstone, for $3,575.

What does Lightbox mean for the rest of the lab diamond industry?

While the launch of Lightbox Jewelry has been newsworthy, it is largely inconsequential to the luxury lab diamond business. At the end of the day, lab grown diamonds above 1ct are still 30–40% less expensive than equivalent quality natural diamonds (despite the alternative facts); they are still indistinguishable from their natural counterparts (even to a trained eye); they are still able to be appraised, insured, and re-sold, just like natural diamonds; and are still a growing segment of the bridal market that is not going away any time soon.

Now that I’ve criticized the *messaging* of Lightbox, I want to paradoxically advocate for Lightbox and applaud De Beers’ investment of approximately $100 million dollars in growing more diamonds.

I am hopeful that Lightbox Jewelry is the first of many successful lab diamond brands emerging from De Beers and other established diamond purveyors, and I encourage other members of the jewelry trade to consider a similar viewpoint. Why?

A successful Lightbox is fantastic for humanity.

Every piece of Lightbox Jewelry sold will contribute to the development of scientific and high-tech uses of lab grown diamonds that advance humanity.

If De Beers is able to sell 200,000 carats of Lightbox diamonds every year, Lightbox will generate $100+ million dollars of annual revenue for Element 6. That is 9-figures of capital to pay PhDs, to expand production capacity, and conduct R&D to expand commercially viable applications of diamonds.

Furthermore, every lab diamond sold in a piece of jewelry is one less diamond that has to be extracted out of the Earth:
One sale of lab diamond jewelry could prevent one ton of ore from being blasted out of a mine.
One sale of lab diamond jewelry could prevent the burning of one marginal barrel of fossil fuel.
One sale of lab diamond jewelry could keep $1 out of the hands of a warlord or corrupt dictator.
One sale of lab diamond jewelry could save one acre of ocean floor from being butchered.

A successful Lightbox is the beginning of the end of diamond mining.

That is why I’m supporting De Beers’ entree into the laboratory-grown diamond market.

Today, on Giving Tuesday, Ada Diamonds is proudly joining Pledge1% by donating 1% of our equity to the Tides Foundation, a philanthropic partner and nonprofit accelerator. Upon an IPO or acquisition of Ada Diamonds, the proceeds will be used to fund philanthropic endeavors of our choosing.

Furthermore, we are committing to a donation of no less than 1% of Ada’s annual profits for the lifetime of the company.

Pledge 1% is a movement spearheaded by Salesforce and Atlassan to inspire young companies to pledge a small portion of future success today to have a large impact in the future.

Why was this an easy decision? My wife and I co-founded Ada Diamonds in 2015 on the belief that diamond jewelry should brighten the entire world, not merely the recipient’s world. To achieve that goal, Ada Diamonds proudly utilizes laboratory-grown diamonds that are sustainably cultivated by mankind above the Earth. Ada refuses to work with ‘dirt diamonds’ that are mined out of the Earth.

In other words, we believe that powerful technology and new ideas can polish the diamond industry and create a more brilliant future for all.

At Ada Diamonds, our CSR efforts pre-date our Pledge of 1%. We call our efforts the Sixth Element Program in honor of carbon, the sixth element of the periodic table of elements. We are proud to support the following six organizations in their efforts to brighten the world:

• Direct Relief — Women’s Health
• Finding Ada — STEM Education
• World Wildlife Fund — Ecological Recovery from Mining
• Partners in Health — Support of Mining Communities
• Pathway Society — Overcoming Substance Abuse
• Team Rubicon — Natural Disaster Response Efforts

There are a few key advantages to donating the equity early in the life of Ada Diamonds:

• We set in stone the philanthropic trajectory of the company. The donated equity is now owned by a charitable foundation and cannot be recalled.
• We create a culture of giving, where it is easy for present and future members of our team to pledge a portion of their stock to causes close to their hearts.
• We prevent a veto by future board members choosing to block philanthropic efforts in the interest of their LPs.
• We signal a long term, deep commitment to the NGOs we are currently supporting.

Corporate and personal philanthropy have always been important to me. Before founding Ada Diamonds, I was the founder of the Philanthropy Engineering Program at Palantir Technologies. In that role, I donated big data analysis software and forward deployed engineering resources to help data driven nonprofits better fulfill their missions.

One my focus areas at Palantir, fighting modern day slavery, led me to start Ada Diamonds. Much to my dismay, there is still bonded and child labor involved in the cutting of diamonds into gemstones, as highlighted in this recent AP report:

Many of the organizations Ada is supporting today are organizations that I had the pleasure of supporting while at Palantir. Here’s President Clinton discussing recovery efforts of Team Rubicon that we supported after Hurricane Sandy, and here’s the CEO of Direct Relief discussing how they use data analysis to improve lives around the world.

We chose to make our pledge on Giving Tuesday as we believe in both giving and gifting during the holiday season. For many young companies, Q4 is an intense and frantic time of year, when ‘making the world a better place’ can fall by the wayside. However, we believe that companies do well by doing good.

If you are a founder or early employee of a company, I encourage you to exploring joining the Pledge1% movement.

If you work at a large company, I encourage you to explore the CSR efforts of your employer. They may have a donation matching program or offer opportunities to volunteer with local charities.

Regardless of your employment status, I encourage you to find a cause you believe in and support them with a donation of your time or financial resources. If you happen to own either Bitcoin and Ethereum, now might be a great time to give BTC or ETH to a cause you support. Guidestar and Charity Navigator are great resources to find organizations worthy of your support.