Some of the highly trained diamond graders and sycophants from Melbourne moonlighting between work and lunch after removing their sauce stained white pharmaceutical jackets for this group photo. A delicious meal consisting of a la carte sausage rolls with certified pig lips and unchewable cow’s ears was enjoyed by all at this happy occassion.
Diamond Grading Box with Invisible Diamond Master Set commonly never seen but often alluded to by wanna be non compliant diamond grading laboratories with interests in their own jewellery businesses.
***
The history and development of the International Diamond Council
By Dieter Hahn, WFDB Treasurer-General
As the only IDC veteran to have stayed with the organization since its founding in 1975, I feel it would be useful to provide a short summary of its origin and development to shed some light on the situation in our sector today.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was an explosion in the numbers of private gem labs grading diamonds, and every one of these institutions was claiming that its standards were the best and its results the most professional. Thus, the WFDB and the IDMA felt that the time had come to take matters into their own hands. During the World Diamond Congress in Amsterdam in 1975, a joint committee of the two organizations was set up and charged with working out a reliable and serious “guideline for grading polished diamonds.” Experienced diamond cutters and dealers from Amsterdam, Antwerp, Idar-Oberstein, Johannesburg and Tel Aviv were chosen to serve.
The Joint Committee, which later became known as the International Diamond Council (IDC), presented its recommendations to the World Diamond Congress in Tel Aviv in 1978, which unanimously accepted them. Unfortunately, our U.S. colleagues withdraw their approval in 1980, changing it to an abstention.
Nevertheless, there were three leading gem labs—Antwerp’s HRD first and foremost, but also the Johannesburg-based Jewellery Council of South Africa and Idar-Oberstein’s Diamant Prüflabor (DPL)—that had done all the gemmological research required to develop the IDC standards, and naturally agreed to abide by them, which they do to this day. Thus, at present the HRD and the DPL are the only labs that are accredited under the ISO standards for quality management in grading polished diamonds.
The IDC standards were published in the “Blue Book,” which was revised slightly in 1995 and reissued. The changes were accepted by the WFDB and the IDMA. At the Presidents Meeting in Mumbai last November, the IDC presented an updated study of definitions and nomenclature. Once again, both the IDMA and the WFDB accepted the IDC’s draft document, with the significant difference that the IDMA voted in favour of certifying synthetic stones, whereas the WFDB refused to do so.
At present the IDC is looking into current systems for grading cut proportions, and other possible small improvements for the “Blue Book.” After these studies are concluded, the results will be presented for approval at the next World Diamond Congress.
• Edward Asscher, Amsterdam, Chairman
• Peter Borgmans (HRD), Antwerp
• Julien Drijboms, Antwerp
• Stephane Fischler, Antwerp
• Dieter Hahn, Idar-Oberstein
• Willy Katz, Antwerp
• Les Milner, Jewellery Council of South Africa, Johannesburg
• Jochen Müller, Idar-Oberstein
• Shmuel Schnitzer, Tel Aviv (President, WFDB)
NEWSLETTER, Edition 14, June 2006 Page 8 World Federation of Diamond Bourses
***
At Diamond Imports we only recommend the Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia ( DCLA ) as the only official recognised accredited IDC and CIBJO truly independent diamond grading laboratory in Australia.
Any diamond vendor or jeweller selling you a diamond with another diamond certificate or diamond grading report from a non compliant diamond grading laboratory in Australia is risking the diamond is either synthetic, treated or enhanced and inaccurately graded.
Furthermore there is a direct conflict of interest when these pseudo diamond grading laboratories are known to be trading in diamonds and jewellery.Those diamond vendors who continually retain the services of non compliant diamond grading laboratories are renowned for misrepresenting the diamonds they are selling and may also be seen colluding with a non compliant diamond laboratory to misrepresent a diamond’s true specifications.
One of these ” labs ” in Melbourne is responsible for the fake GIA laser inscription dicovered in Melbourne.
At Diamond Imports, we represent a growing number of concerned diamond dealers who will not tolerate the detrimental damage being caused by those unethical dealers who are giving our diamond industry a bad name. Unfortunately not enough diamond dealers tend to be as conspicuously concerned because they feel it is not in the interest of the diamond industry to air our dirty laundry in public.
I got news for you all….It works for Diamond Imports
And it also works for our many clients who recognise the Diamond Imports Difference
Mr Ian Hadassin, the relatively new CEO of the Jewellers Association of Australia ( JAA ) has met the challenge and has concurred that there are too many jewellers and diamond dealers in the JAA flaunting the rules and correct diamond protocols that are observed by most other international jewellery trade associations worldwide
Mr Hadassin has stated that presently there are no laws dictating that a diamond grading laboratory is acting illegally by being non compliant. This is true.
However the international guidelines set down by the IDC and World Federation of Diamond Bourses are there to be enforced for that reason should a member be in clear moral breach of the rules.
CIBJO ( World Federation of Jewellers) of which the JAA is the Australian member is not policing it’s own membership or as stringent as it purports to be.
Non-compliance is defined as a ‘breach’ situation where a legal process has not been commenced. In other words, each case of non-compliance represents a risk that has yet to be realised.
It is time that those who refuse to abide by their own code of ethics be exposed .Diamond Imports is not a member of the JAA but supports both the DCLA and the JAA in their efforts to clean up the years of entrenched cronyism amongst the JAA board members and those unethical diamond dealers who continue to ridicule and scoff at those of us who know the real truth.
Furthermore all diamonds colour graded by these pseudo diamond labs if they prove not to have a compliant diamond colour master set should be recalled for correct re examination at no extra cost to the owners of the grading reports. It is the responsibility of the JAA to issue a press release alerting the public to a national recall.
If gradings prove to be inaccurate and misrepresented do not ask for a refund. Just simply request the diamond be replaced with a diamond of the correct grade instead. You will be the winner and the diamond vendor will out of pocket for not selling you the diamond as stated.
My guess this will be in the thousands and reveal to all how inferior and inaccurate the diamond grading reports are that diamond vendors use to misrepresent the diamonds they market. I bet that will upset the chooks as they break frantically into a mad panic to cover their tracks of their own deceit.
Any diamond vendor or jeweller who objects or ridicules the second opinion is either ignorant or has something to hide.
Enough is Enough. I challenge anyone to dare to prove me wrong. If you wish to show me the same support please do not send money.Rather give it to your favourite charity or perhaps to Mr Coleby who I feel will be needing a lot more now than the $50,000 fighting fund supposedly raised in his failed attempt to discredit the DCLA for what superfluous purpose nobody knows.
It’s time the innocent public consumer stops being screwed and confidence in the diamond industry be restored by excreting the scum, a strong reputable jewellers association and a jewellers magazine that supports these same principles in both deed and word.
