{"id":14058,"date":"2017-09-20T09:10:25","date_gmt":"2017-09-20T09:10:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cibjo.org\/?p=14058"},"modified":"2018-06-13T13:48:59","modified_gmt":"2018-06-13T13:48:59","slug":"cibjo-releases-diamond-commissions-special-report-focusing-on-language-used-to-differentiate-naturals-from-synthetics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cibjo.org\/rstoolkit\/cibjo-releases-diamond-commissions-special-report-focusing-on-language-used-to-differentiate-naturals-from-synthetics\/","title":{"rendered":"CIBJO releases Diamond Commission\u2019s Special Report, focusing on language used to differentiate naturals from synthetics"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017<\/strong><\/p>\n

With fewer than seven weeks to go to the opening of the 2017 CIBJO Congress in Bangkok, Thailand, on November 5, 2017, the third of the CIBJO commissions’ Special Reports has been released. Prepared by Udi Sheintal, President of the organisation\u2019s Diamond Commission, the report focuses on the terminology used both within the industry and in the consumer markets to differentiate between diamonds sourced naturally and those which are synthetic.<\/p>\n

\u201cWithout proper analysis, diamonds formed in nature and synthetic diamonds created by man are difficult to distinguish from one another, and consequently the way they each are referred to \u2013 or named \u2013 is so important. That they are different products there is no argument. But how do we make certain that the consuming public understands this to be the case?\u201d Mr. Sheintal asks at the opening of the report.<\/p>\n

In terms of acceptable terminology in the trade, the situation is clear, the report emphasises. Both CIBJO\u2019s Blue Book and the International Standards Organisation\u2019s ISO 18232 rule state categorically that, if the word \u201cdiamond\u201d is used without any modifying adjective, it can only be a natural stone. Synthetic diamonds have to be described using one of a number of acceptable modifiers, such as \u201csynthetic,\u201d \u201claboratory-created\u201d or \u201claboratory-grown.\u201d Any wilful deviation from these rules by a company selling synthetic diamonds is considered deliberately deceptive behaviour.<\/p>\n

But, asks Mr. Sheintal, is the reluctance to use the word \u201cnatural\u201d when communicating within the trade correct when it comes to the consumer market? \u201cThe diamond industry needs to take ownership of the adjective \u201cnatural,\u201d and associate it with other modifiers like \u2018real,\u2019 \u2018genuine,\u2019 \u2018rare\u2019 and \u2018unique,\u2019\u201d he writes. \u201cIt should be one of our biggest selling tools. But at the same time, we should not budge one centimetre in our opposition to any product that is wholly or partially artificial being referred to as \u2018a diamond.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

To download a full copy of the CIBJO Diamond Commission\u2019s special report, PLEASE CLICK HERE. \u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>