LawGem- what do you think of this?

[Richard Sherwood]

I took this quote off the Bellataire site, sellers of the HPHT diamond. It threw me for a loop. What do you think?

-----------
Q: Is the BELLATAIRE process considered a "treatment"?

Probably the simplest answer to this question is that the Gem Trade Lab of the GIA, arguably the most respected gemological laboratory in the world, will not issue Grading Reports on treated diamonds. Every BELLATAIRE diamond is accompanied by a full GIA Report. Treated diamonds usually have one or more of the following characteristics: a change that is not permanent, special care needed for maintenance, and/or applied material that is not intrinsic to the natural diamond. BELLATAIRE Diamonds have none of these characteristics. In fact, the process that restores BELLATAIRE Diamonds to their original natural state in many ways alters rough diamonds less than the processes of cleaving, laser-shaping, polishing, and acid-boiling, among others, that are accepted activities necessary for transforming rough to polished.
-----------

 

[aljdewey]

I found this regarding Bellataire/GIA:


http://www.tucsonshowguide.com/stories/mar01/gemid.cfm




"The Bellataire diamond was introduced in 1999 by General Electric Co. and Pegasus Overseas Limited (POL), a subsidiary of Lazare Kaplan International today, the diamond is marketed in the United States by Bellataire Diamonds Inc. of New York.

The HPHT process is applied to the relatively rare brown Type IIa diamond to remove the brown and convert it to a whiter, and far more valuable, diamond. The GIA refers to the diamond as processed in its certification reports, says Bellataire spokesperson Chuck Meyer."

It further goes on to say that all Bellataire diamonds are inscribed with "GE POL".

 

[mike04456]

GIA won't issue reports on fracture-filled diamonds, but that's about it. The closest "definition" of treatment is in the FTC guidelines, which lists treatments that have to be disclosed. It indeed includes impermanent treatments, those with special care requirements, but also anything that has a "substantial effect on value." HPHT treatment certainly does--which is why they're disclosing it on their web site. But I would call that "disclosure without disclosing," i.e., we're disclosing this treatment to you, but, you know, it's not really a treatment so don't pay any attention to this.




HPHT treatment in no way "restores diamonds to their natural state." Most natural diamonds have lots of inclusions and some degree of brown color. I suppose it "improves" the crystal structure of the diamond, but that doesn't correspond to "natural state" in my mind.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 10/3/2003 11:14:17 PM aljdewey wrote:

It further goes on to say that all Bellataire diamonds are inscribed with 'GE POL'.

----------------

To understand this, you need to have a little context. When GE first came out with this treatment, they didn't want to have to disclose it to anyone. So what they did--believe it or not--was introduce hundreds of these treated diamonds into the trade by passing them through GIA and other labs for certs without telling anyone. This was before anyone really knew how to detect the treatment. Then, when GIA issued reports for the diamonds that didn't mention any treatment, GE POL announced, "Hey, guess what, GIA can't detect this, and it's a permanent treatment, so we're not going to disclose it to anyone." As you might imagine, GIA and the rest of the diamond trade were both shocked and outraged by this tactic. GIA refused to accept any more GE POL diamonds until they had a method to detect the treatment, and until GE agreed to disclose it properly. Since GE POL would have a much harder time selling their diamonds without GIA reports, they backed down and agreed to work with GIA on proper disclosure. After a few months, GIA and the other labs worked out ways to detect the treatment. GE agreed to inscribe all their diamonds with "GE POL," and the labs from then on noted the inscription and any signs of treatment they discovered on the report. Why they use "process" instead of "treatment," I'm not certain, but there are probably some political elements in it. I think GIA's position was that disclosure was the important thing and the semantics of it were not that big a deal.

 

[fire&ice]

At the end of the day, wasn't the concern in the secondary market? If I recall correctly, the "branding" could easily be removed.

Say the inscription was polished out then resubmitted to GIA. Would GIA routinely check for the process?

I don't mean to scare anyone. And, I knew all of this going into buying my big rock. But, I fear that the diamond market may take a hit w/ all of this stuff & the apollo stuff. At a certain point, how much can be in control.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Thanks LawGem. I will forward that on to the GIA legal department. It definitely seems like they are using GIA policy in a manipulative manner to represent their product as not being "treated".

F&I, in some ways the labs and industry is more "in control" than they've ever been in regards to treatment and disclosure. All this stuff created a situation where guidelines had to be instituted and enforced in a much more rigorous manner. A case in point is how the GIA stared down and brought around GE POL to their way of thinking regarding HPHT disclosure.