Denverappraiser on how to avoid ''Conflict Diamonds''

[denverappraiser]

Retailers are interested in describing their products in the best light possible. This is entirely reasonable and, as a result, they aren’t interested in bringing this topic up unless the customer expresses interest in it. It would be like retailers of other items making a statement on in their advertising that the manufacturing was done in compliance with OSHA and EPA regulations. It probably was, and they may even be prepared to prove it if asked, but announcing this sort of thing unsolicited to every customer regardless of interest is not the best way to make sales. As this becomes a higher profile issue I think you will see more and more retailers include the KP statement in the ‘fine print’ of their invoices and it has already become a cornerstone issue for several of the branded stones. For many retailers it’s impossible to make a blanket statement about every stone they carry or to preprint the statement on their forms because of stones that were mined and cut prior to the start of KP. Recycling older stones is both a socially and environmentally responsible thing to do and it’s certainly to be encouraged, but it’s NOT Kimberly compliant.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[fire&ice]

This weekend we watched the movie Rocdoc was refrencing "Lord of War". He, Nicholas Cage, was given rough diamonds in exchange for arms. How realistic is this? Wouldn''t the cutters be a little suspicious as to how an "import/export" guy would come to own these?

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 9/4/2006 10:23:21 AM
Author: fire&ice
This weekend we watched the movie Rocdoc was refrencing 'Lord of War'. He, Nicholas Cage, was given rough diamonds in exchange for arms. How realistic is this? Wouldn't the cutters be a little suspicious as to how an 'import/export' guy would come to own these?

The era being described in that movie is prior to Canadian diamonds, Kimberly Process and the USA Patriot act. The war being depicted is over (sort of). That said, diamonds have been, and will undoubtedly continue to be used as currency for transactions ranging from illegal weapons to drugs to prostitution and slavery. The transactions depicted in that movie would be very difficult to reproduce in 2006 but the bad guys are pretty creative people and they are still out there. The next time is likely be some other commodity, some other country and some other travesty. The real solution to pay attention. The problem is not in the diamonds. It’s not the diamonds that did the evil, and it wont be the oil, water, food, lumber, medicine or whatever other fungible commodity that they use next time.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/4/2006 1:41:22 AM
Author: Regular Guy

I see the link, thanks John.

Also, I read there, as Wink pointed out (I think in this thread), that all vendors must comply to do business, or go to the hoos gow, so although JA does not visibly carry this disclaimer anymore that I can see, I suppose I can assume he is in compliance, as much as you are.

No problem Ira. I feel confident in speculating that all the pros on this channel are in compliance and could gladly demonstrate it.

I should have been more clear about our client assurances: Our website information is for the public. Additionally we provide a sourcing statement on each invoice to clients who buy from us with a conflict-free guarantee.