GN Diamond: Where great prices lead to true partnerships. The diamond source that thousands of jewelers trust.
Tom Moses exit interview, take two
After Tom Moses announced he was leaving GIA after nearly 50 years with the organization, he and I did an exit interview for JCK. But we also discussed having a franker talk after he had left GIA (which, as it so happens, was after I left JCK).
Here, GIA’s former chief research and laboratory officer—who is still mulling over what he wants to do next—shares his unvarnished opinion about GIA’s (since reversed) decision to issue Four C’s grading reports, his thoughts on lab-grown and grading terminology, and his excitement over GIA’s pending fancy cut grades.
The Jewelry Wire: Do you think the industry could have done a better job handling lab-grown diamonds?
Moses: I would say there’s two or three things that in hindsight could have been done better, industry-wide and perhaps at GIA. I think the nomenclature has become confused. I remember working 30, 40 years ago on nomenclature, with the FTC and other trade organizations. The terms that were in place for a long time were “synthetic,” “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” and “[maker]-created.” I always used them interchangeably.
But the industry has become sloppy in its use of nomenclature, which has resulted in looser usage. All of a sudden, both natural and laboratory-grown diamonds were being described as the same thing. I think that made the situation more challenging and, in a way, misleading.
There’s a saying: “How do you know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been?” I think that applies to synthetic gem material. A French chemist, Auguste Verneuil, first used the term “synthetic” with the introduction of synthetic rubies. When they came to the market, it was a shock. Synthetic rubies got mixed in with fine rubies until there were ways to distinguish them.
Then the technology improved, and the prices became less and less. Synthetic emeralds followed the same path. Tom Chatham’s father [Carroll] originally produced them, as I recall, at about $400 a carat. And then Russian chemists and others produced synthetic emerald for a much lower cost, and the price dropped.
We should have done a better job in telling the story of the path of other synthetic gem materials to the retailer and the consumer. Instead, the debate about laboratory-grown and natural diamond has become a stone-throwing thing, and that doesn’t help anyone.
The worrisome point is that, just a year ago, the price of laboratory-growns was two or three times what it is now. Yet, some of these large margins still exist. I worry about the impact on the industry with consumers paying more than they should.
Just a year ago, the price of lab-growns was two or three times what it is now. Yet, some of these large margins still exist.
The Jewelry Wire: When you mention sloppiness about nomenclature, what exactly do you mean?
Moses: Calling something a diamond without prefacing it with “man-made,” “[maker]-created,” or “laboratory-grown.” That violates the FTC Guidelines. People saying that laboratory-grown and natural are the same. If they were the same, we wouldn’t be able to distinguish them. I worry about the collateral longer-term impact this behavior will have.
Diamonds and man-made diamonds are different products and should be represented accurately. Synthetic or man-made gems have, for the most part, followed the same path: disruption at introduction, the development of diagnostic methods to separate them from their natural counterparts, significant reduction in production costs, and overall acceptance and success in the marketplace. Clearly, laboratory-grown diamonds are following that trend.
The Jewelry Wire: Do you think it was right for the GIA to grade lab-grown diamonds with the Four C’s?
Moses: That was something we thought a lot about. We had two ideas: coming up with a different nomenclature and using a hybrid system. In hindsight, I believe we should have used a different nomenclature. The Four C’s were created on a continuum of rarity. Most CVD as-grown production is light brown, and then it’s decolorized at high temperature and pressure. If I treat a diamond more efficiently, it shouldn’t rank higher on a rarity scale.
We could have said “top white” and “second white” and that also would have been clear.
The Jewelry Wire: Why was that decision made? I remember it was done during COVID, when everyone’s business was down.
Moses: COVID and its influence on business was part of the decision. There were also requests from the industry for those reports.
In retrospect, I don’t believe that was the best decision to make. It had the unintended consequence of creating the perception that there is some rarity to those products. Even back then, the largest producer of synthetic diamond was producing 2,000 tons of synthetic diamond a year.
GIA issuing those reports gave synthetic diamonds more credibility. People said, “It has a GIA report, so they’re saying it’s just like a natural.” It allowed people to more easily blend the two, and that didn’t serve the consumer well. I became a strong advocate for changing it.
The Jewelry Wire: Some have said that lab-growns shouldn’t be measured in carats, but grams.
Moses: I think that’s less of an issue. One can say that carats are reserved for gemstones, but I don’t think the unit for weight is so important.
The Jewelry Wire: Do you agree with those who say the term “synthetic” is confusing to the consumer?
Moses: The term “synthetic” has been used for 130 years. It has a long history. Those less familiar with the history thought it was a pejorative term. We didn’t invent it. That term existed before GIA was founded.
The technical community always uses “synthetic.” General Electric used “man-made,” which is also a descriptive term. A laboratory suggests a clean room environment. The facilities I’ve been to, some of the factories are as long as 100 yards.
A laboratory connotes this special clean room environment. The facilities I’ve been to in China, some of the factories are 100 yards long.
The Jewelry Wire: What do you think the natural diamond business needs to do now to stop this “confusion,” as you call it?
Moses: We need to get back to the basics of storytelling with natural diamonds. We need to tell better stories about the diamond’s journey, how they are more than billions of years old, and how they are believed to take millions of years to form. I believe that consumers will find that information interesting. To own and wear something that is more than a billion years old creates more pride in ownership.
We need more transparency, more facts woven into the story. Those are the basics. We need to do a better job with them.
The Jewelry Wire: What about the complaints that other labs grade to different standard than GIA does?
Moses: Let’s take any other product, like the composition of a sweater. If you say it is cashmere, it should be cashmere. You can’t say you’re measuring something in millimeters but use a different standard than the rest of the world. To use the four C’s nomenclature developed by GIA, and not GIA’s standard, is deceptive. This is something that worries me for the whole industry and its impact on consumer confidence.
The Jewelry Wire: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Moses: I would like to comment on the work GIA has been doing for many years with fancy shape diamonds, led by Jason Quick.
Just as GIA did with round brilliants, they are creating a similar system to evaluate cut for fancy-shape diamonds. Fancy shapes are far more complex than rounds. To develop the system for rounds, we modeled nearly 40 million sets of proportions. That wasn’t possible to do that with fancy shapes. But it will be a system with five categories (excellent through poor) and consider the same metrics. When the rollout begins in 2027, retailers will be able to ask for a GIA report with a triple excellent cut grade for fancy shapes.
This system will be a benefit for the entire pipeline. Manufacturers will have more options to decide what shape to cut and still receive a top cut grade. This will result in greater yield in many cases, and a better utilization of the raw materials. Retailers can help consumers understand cut quality, allowing fancy shapes to compete equally with round brilliants.
I believe this system will be transformational for manufacturers and retailers and will make fancy shapes more saleable, especially well-cut ones. It will give consumers more choices with better-cut fancy shapes and be a significant benefit to the entire pipeline.
Tom Moses can be reached at tommoses55@gmail.com.
Past Saturday Long Reads:
The joys of being a female self-purchaser
Brands are everywhere. But not in the diamond industry. Why not?
How partners and family members in the jewelry business work together without killing each other
The luxury industry has lost millions of customers. Can it bounce back?
Exit interview with Ellen Fruchtman
Interview with De Beers CEO Al Cook (with questions from Jewelers Helping Jewelers)
How annoying “corporate speak” is ruining the jewelry industry
19 tips to keep your merchandise (and yourself) safe during trade shows
Exit interview with Dick Abbott, founder of The Edge for Jewelers
Why Mejuri and gorjana are winning younger shoppers—and other jewelers aren’t
Lab-grown diamonds: what consumers want to know
Just what is a Desert Diamond?
Five reasons for Charles & Colvard’s bankruptcy
Why synthetic colored stones are viewed differently than synthetic diamonds
The Jewelry Wire is independent and reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribe
