Western countries’ attempts to interfere with Russian diamond exports may lead to disruption of supply chains, which runs counter to the interests of the industry as a whole, Dmitry Birichevsky, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s economic cooperation department, told Sputnik.
“It is clear that the restrictive measures that are being developed, whatever they may be, risk disrupting established supply chains and thus inimical to the interests of the diamond industry as a whole. In this regard, Westerners are trying to provide a plausible pretext for their irresponsible actions, including on various international platforms,” Birichevsky said.
Russia is one of the largest diamond industry players, accounting for 30% of world production, the official noted.
“At the same time, Russian manufacturers are exceptionally responsible market participants, whose activities not only meet, but often exceed international standards and are in many ways a model for others,” Birichevsky said.
He noted that opponents should be aware that any attempts to prevent Russian diamond exports are non-market oriented.
“For our part, we consistently counter attempts to deliberately distort the foundations and principles of the relevant multilateral formats that determine the functioning of the global diamond market. It is encouraging that a vast majority of industry representatives share our approaches,” Birichevsky added.
Earlier this month, top US and European Commission officials met with diamond industry leaders to discuss ways to cut-off billions in revenue to Russia.
In February, the Group of Seven (G7) countries agreed to further sanction the Russian diamond industry in an attempt to slash Russian revenues amid Moscow’s special military operation in Ukraine. The G7 said in a joint statement that they would engage key partners on further measures on Russian diamonds, including rough and polished ones.
On Saturday, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said he expected the European Union’s 11th package of sanctions to target Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and Russian diamonds.
Lightbox has promoted Adam O’Grady to the newly created role of chief operating officer, effective March 27.
The executive will lead all aspects of supply chain and manufacturing activity for the De Beers-owned lab-grown diamond company, it said last week. These include diamond synthesis and jewelry manufacturing, cutting and polishing, and research and development.
O’Grady has been general manager of the Lightbox lab since 2019. In addition to his new responsibilities, he will continue to oversee operations and engineering at the company’s advanced manufacturing lab in Gresham, Oregon, where he is based.
“He is a transformational leader with deep knowledge of the lab-grown diamond category,” said Lightbox CEO Antoine Borde.
Prior to joining Lightbox, O’Grady spent his two-decade professional career at Element Six, De Beers’ industrial super-materials and synthetic-diamond business. He served in a series of general management and senior project roles in South Africa, China and the UK. In 2019, he oversaw the design and construction of Lightbox’s $94 million manufacturing lab in Gresham, which opened in October 2020.
Diamonds have long been a symbol of love, luxury, and status. However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in the production of laboratory-grown diamonds as a more ethical and sustainable alternative to mined diamonds. In this article, we will explore the differences between a mined diamond and a laboratory-grown diamond.
Mined Diamonds:
Mined diamonds are formed naturally over millions of years deep beneath the earth’s surface. These diamonds are found in mines, usually in remote locations, and are extracted using heavy machinery and explosives. The mining process is often associated with negative environmental and social impacts, such as habitat destruction, water pollution, and exploitation of workers.
Mined diamonds are valued for their rarity and unique characteristics. The quality of a diamond is determined by the 4Cs – cut, clarity, carat weight, and colour. The more perfect a diamond is in each of these categories, the more valuable it is considered to be.
Laboratory-grown Diamonds:
Laboratory-grown diamonds are created using advanced technological processes that mimic the natural formation of diamonds. These diamonds are produced in a laboratory environment, where conditions are controlled and monitored to ensure consistent quality and purity.
The process of creating a laboratory-grown diamond involves using a small diamond seed, which is placed in a chamber and exposed to extreme heat and pressure. Over a period of weeks, carbon atoms are deposited onto the seed, gradually building up the crystal structure of the diamond.
The resulting laboratory-grown diamond is physically and chemically identical to a mined diamond, and can be graded using the same 4Cs criteria.
Differences between Mined Diamonds and Laboratory-grown Diamonds:
Mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds have very similar chemical properties, as they are both made of pure carbon atoms arranged in a crystalline structure. However, there are some subtle differences in the impurities and defects that can be present in each type of diamond.
Mined diamonds can contain trace elements such as nitrogen, boron, and hydrogen, which can affect the diamond’s colour and other properties. Laboratory-grown diamonds can also contain these impurities, but they can be controlled more precisely during the growth process to produce diamonds with specific colours and properties.
One key difference between mined and laboratory-grown diamonds is the presence of defects in the crystal structure. Mined diamonds can contain defects such as vacancies, dislocations, and impurity atoms, which can affect the diamond’s hardness and other physical properties. Laboratory-grown diamonds are typically more pure and have fewer defects, which can make them more consistent in their properties and easier to work with for industrial and scientific applications.
In terms of their chemical composition, both mined and laboratory-grown diamonds are made of pure carbon, with each carbon atom bonded to four neighboring carbon atoms in a tetrahedral arrangement. This gives diamonds their unique hardness and other physical properties, as well as their optical properties such as high refractive index and dispersion.
Overall, while there are some subtle differences in the impurities and defects that can be present in mined and laboratory-grown diamonds, they are both essentially the same material in terms of their chemical properties.
One of the key differences between mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds is their origin. Mined diamonds are natural, formed over millions of years in the earth’s mantle. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are created using advanced technological processes in a laboratory.
Another difference is the environmental and social impact of the two types of diamonds. Mined diamonds are often associated with negative environmental and social impacts, such as habitat destruction, water pollution, and exploitation of workers. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are generally considered to be more sustainable and ethical, as they do not involve the same level of environmental destruction or human exploitation.
Finally, there is a difference in price between mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds. Mined diamonds are generally more expensive, due to their rarity and the high costs associated with mining and extraction. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are often less expensive, as they can be produced in larger quantities and do not require the same level of mining and extraction.
Conclusion:
Mined diamonds and laboratory-grown diamonds both have their pros and cons. While mined diamonds are valued for their rarity and unique characteristics, they are often associated with negative environmental and social impacts. Laboratory-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are more sustainable and ethical, but may be less valuable due to their artificial origin. Ultimately, the choice between a mined diamond and a laboratory-grown diamond comes down to personal values and priorities.
HB Antwerp has announced a partnership with Botswana to foster a new generation of diamond talent.
It has signed a a five-year memorandum of understanding with the Botswana International University of Science and Technology (BIUST).
They will jointly organize traineeships for Botswanan youth, offer scholarships for promising local talent, drive innovative projects backed by digital supply chains, and create job opportunities in the diamond sector.
The move comes as Botswana threatens to walk away from its long-standing sales agreement with De Beers, which is due for renewal at the end of June.
There has been media speculation that the Okavango Diamond Company (ODC), wholly owned by the Botswana government, was planning to sell its specials (+10.8-carats) to Belgian manufacturer HB Antwerp and to Canada-based Lucara and instead of De Beers.
HB Antwerp says it promotes respect for local communities, fair labor and pay, and investment in skills training and job placement opportunities for local workers.
Rafael Papismedov, its managing partner and strategy director, said: “Young people in Africa have incredible potential, but often do not have access to meaningful opportunities.
“We believe in the power of diamonds to catalyze positive change and look forward to leveraging this partnership to deliver on that potential for the Botswanan people.”
It can be challenging to determine the exact location where a diamond was mined, but there are several ways to get an idea of its origin:
Diamond certificate: A diamond certificate or grading report from a reputable laboratory such as GIA, AGS, HRD, IGI or DCLA will provide information about the diamond’s characteristics, including its colour, clarity, and carat weight. Some certificates may also include information about the diamond’s origin or a statement that the diamond is of natural origin.
Inscription: Some diamonds may have a laser inscription on the girdle (the thin outer edge) of the diamond that identifies the diamond’s report and sometimes brand origin or other information about the diamond. The inscription is a laser inscription or a micro-inscription that can only be viewed under magnification.
Jewellers and diamond dealers: An experienced jeweller or diamond dealer may be able to provide information about the diamond’s origin based on their knowledge and experience in the industry.
Diamond tracing programs: Some diamond companies offer programs that trace the origin of their diamonds from the mine to the consumer. For example, the De Beers Group has a program called Tracr that provides a digital certificate of a diamond’s journey from mine to retailer. It’s important to note that not all diamonds can be traced to their exact origin, but the above methods can provide some information about a diamond’s potential source.
Diamonds can be found in various places around the world, but the most famous diamond sources are:
Botswana: Botswana is the world’s leading producer of diamonds by value and is responsible for about 25% of the world’s diamond supply.
Russia: Russia is the world’s largest diamond producer by volume, accounting for about 27% of global diamond production. The majority of diamonds mined in Russia come from the Yakutia region in northeastern Russia.
Canada: Canada is the world’s third-largest diamond producer, and its diamond mines are known for producing high-quality gemstones. The majority of Canada’s diamond mines are located in the Northwest Territories.
Australia: Australia is known for producing some of the world’s most valuable pink and red diamonds. The Argyle Diamond Mine in Western Australia was the world’s largest source of pink diamonds until its closure in 2020.
South Africa: South Africa is one of the earliest sources of diamonds, and the country’s Kimberley region is famous for its diamond mines. The Cullinan Diamond, the largest rough diamond ever found, was discovered in South Africa in 1905.
G7 countries could oblige companies to affirm that their imported polished diamonds are not of Russian provenance, according to the US’s top sanctions official.
Leaders of the bloc will meet at a summit in mid-May and are looking to have a plan in place by then, according to a member alert the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC) released Tuesday summarizing remarks by Ambassador James O’Brien, who heads the US’s Office of Sanctions Coordination.
“There could be a required declaration that finished diamonds imported to the US and other G7 markets were not originally mined in Russia or other kinds of restrictions that apply to polished diamonds,” O’Brien said, according to the note. “The aim is to ensure this is phased in at a time and flow that will accommodate the work of the industry.”
O’Brien made his comments at last week’s annual JVC luncheon, where he was the guest speaker. The summary contained a mix of direct and paraphrased quotes, wrote JVC president and general counsel Tiffany Stevens.
The G7 includes the US, as well as Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK. The European Union is known as its “eighth member.”
Alrosa, in which the Kremlin holds a stake, “is deeply rooted to the power structure within Russia, and our government wants to make sure its revenue is not available for them to raid,” O’Brien explained. The state is seeking sources of funds to keep the war in Ukraine going, he added.
Important issues to tackle include how long to wait for Russian diamonds that are currently in the market to exit the system, the sizes of stones to which sanctions would apply, and how enforcement will work, the ambassador pointed out. “Having thoughts on these questions that can contribute to a framework in time for the mid-May meeting is a goal of the US government,” he said.
He also said that the US wanted to make sure Burma — also known as Myanmar — didn’t help Russia. The Asian country has been subject to various US sanctions since a military takeover in 2021.
“Russia is going to its allies and asking them to give back military equipment,” the official said, according to the JVC summary. “Burma supports Russia, so the government also wants to make sure Burma is restricted in its sources of revenue, so it doesn’t help Russia as well. This includes ensuring the regime does not earn money from the sale of rubies and other gemstones.”
Burgundy’s $136m deal to buy the Ekati diamond mine, in Canada, is likely to extend its life “significantly”, says Kim Truter, the company’s CEO.
The purchase, announced last week, from Arctic Canadian, should be concluded next month, pending financing and shareholders’ approval.
“The real advantage is it’s a tier-one asset in a tier-one country,” Truter told CBC News, Canada’s publicly owned news and information service.
He said he saw untapped potential at Ekati, which opened in 1998 as Canada’s first diamond mine.
Ekati is particularly attractive to Australia-base Burgundy because of the fancy yellow stones it produces, such as the 71.26-carat octahedron diamond recovered last September (pictured), believed to be the largest fancy vivid yellow gemstone discovered in Canada.
New owner Burgundy has a keen interest in yellow diamonds. It is currently reviving the Ellendale mine, Western Australia, once the world’s largest producer of fancy yellow diamonds, and has established its own dedicated cut and polish facility in Perth, also in Western Australia.
Burgundy is buying Ekati from Arctic Canadian Diamond Company, which acquired it in February 2021 after the previous owners, Dominion Diamonds, filed for insolvency.
HRD Antwerp has sued its former Turkish partner company following allegations the Belgian laboratory had routinely “upgraded” diamonds.
The organization is in a dispute with Enstitü Istanbul Bilim Akademisi Yönetim Danışmanlığı, with which it ended a longstanding collaboration in 2021.
The messy divorce intensified last week when the Belgian press reported allegations that HRD, in 2020, had introduced a strategy of giving diamonds higher grades than other laboratories. On Wednesday, HRD said it had taken legal action against its former partners in Turkey for “damaging its business reputation.”
Belgian lawsuit
The disagreement revolves around a civil lawsuit that Enstitü Istanbul Bilim Akademisi Yönetim Danışmanlığı filed in late 2021 against HRD at an Antwerp court, according to a March 9 report by Belgian newspaper De Tijd. Investigators have also been looking into whether there was anything suspicious about the HRD’s grading methods, the report added.
Nearly six years ago, according to De Tijd, the International Diamond Council (IDC) — which the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) set up in the 1970s to unify diamond grading around the world — excluded HRD from its membership. In a letter to HRD’s then CEO Michel Janssens, IDC president Harry Levy wrote that it was “no longer the case” that HRD graded according to IDC rules, the newspaper reported.
By then, HRD was in a bad financial state, according to leaked internal slides that the newspaper cited. This was still the case in 2020, when another leaked document read: “With current results, HRD is out of business,” the Dutch-language report said.
In a new strategy, HRD determined that stones that already had Gemological Institute of America (GIA) reports were allowed to receive one or two color “upgrades” or one clarity “upgrade,” the report alleged. The lab was not to downgrade the diamonds unless there had been a genuine mistake, the report continued. Stones from IGI were not allowed to receive an upgrade, it said. The paper cited an internal online meeting in which Mike Davey, then director of HRD Antwerp Istanbul, shot down the policy as a “way to commit market fraud.”
In the same meeting, HRD Istanbul owner Mehmet Can Özdemir said, according to the report: “Valuing diamonds involves a certain amount of subjectivity. If things are really tight, graders can go higher or lower. But that is never about one full degree. In our scenario, we immediately jump up two.”
HRD performed an audit of its standards following the allegations and found no irregularities, its CEO, Ellen Joncheere, told Rapaport News Wednesday.
“We are in fact a bit more lenient [than the GIA] on color but stricter on cut and fluorescence, but this is known by the market,” Joncheere said.
Trademark disagreement
On Wednesday, HRD also responded with allegations that Özdemir had “made shady deals” and had used HRD’s power and reputation unfairly.
“One of the main reasons for the termination [of the partnership] was that the partners holding the management of the company did not transfer the trademark ‘HRD,’ which was unfairly registered in the name of HRD Istanbul, to the clients [HRD Antwerp], despite their previous commitments,” said Tuncay Çaltekin, HRD Antwerp’s attorney, in a statement Wednesday.
The partners also placed liens on the HRD trademark through other companies owned by their family members and transferred HRD’s assets into those companies, Çaltekin alleged. “In other words, they committed irregularities contrary to the agreement,” he claimed.
Meanwhile, Joncheere gave an interview to Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws (HLN), published Wednesday, in which she alleged there had been “tax and financial fraud” at the Turkish counterpart.
Özdemir dismissed the CEO’s claims as “pathetic, dishonest and desperate.”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is another defining moment for the diamond industry.
On March 11, the US government banned imports of Russian diamonds. The sanctions extend to rough from Russia and stones cut and polished in the country. They do not include goods that were mined in Russia and polished elsewhere, which accounts for most of Russian supply.
The more extreme scenario would have been a ban on all Russian-origin diamonds, regardless of where they are manufactured. Such a move may still happen, the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC) warned, which would cut off an estimated 28% of global resources. That polished from Russian rough can still legally be imported to the US presents the industry with a lifeline — or loophole — preventing that consequence.
Many have understandably been calling for a blanket boycott of all Russian diamonds, or to label them as conflict or blood diamonds. After all, Alrosa — the world’s largest rough producer by volume, which accounts for most of Russian production — is 33% owned by the Russian government, which initiated the war.
However, according to the classic definition, these goods cannot be labeled as conflict diamonds as they are not funding a rebel movement engaged in civil war. They’re also not stained by torture or human-rights violations carried out at a mine site.
For now, the diamonds are simply sanctioned in the US. But the crisis certainly constitutes an ethical dilemma for the industry.
It therefore highlights the industry’s traceability efforts over the past few years, and the importance of being able to track a diamond through all stages of its journey from mine to market. The programs try to begin with the mine or country where the rough is recovered, whereas the sanctions account for “substantial transformation,” meaning that the source becomes the location at which the diamond changes its form from rough to polished.
Traceability challenges
While blockchain technology has enabled an easier tracking of transactions between various stages of the pipeline, no system is foolproof.
De Beers, the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), and Sarine Technologies are among the major players that have developed programs — as is Alrosa. Last year, the Russian miner introduced its provenance program to trace its production using nanotechnology. To its credit, Alrosa has arguably been most open to the idea of advanced diamond-tracking, providing rough for both the GIA and Sarine programs, and joining De Beers’ Tracr platform in its initial stages.
The fragmented nature of the industry effort is arguably necessary as it allows for better branding opportunities, at least in De Beers’ case. A centralized traceability platform, which was Tracr’s original goal, would also create logistical and trust issues regarding who has access to data, among other obstacles.
But the existing programs are in their beginning stages and have their own shortcomings.
The most famous challenge comes from De Beers since the company aggregates, or mixes, production from its various mines in Botswana, Canada, Namibia and South Africa. So, when sightholders want to disclose the provenance of their De Beers diamond, they must reference DTC, the miner’s program that assures those diamonds were responsibly sourced in one of its four host countries. Notably, one cannot market that production as De Beers diamonds due to complications related to the company’s retail brand. De Beers also has its Code of Origin program, launched last year, in which it inscribes diamonds of participating sightholders with a code that identifies it as ethically mined by De Beers.
Aggregation therefore presents a stumbling block for a retailer that wants to give specifics about the mine or country in which the diamond was recovered.
The GIA faces a similar challenge with its Diamond Origin Reports. Its program receives data from the lab’s own analysis of rough before it is polished. The owner of the rough — be it a participating miner, manufacturer, dealer or tender house — sends the stones to the institute, which relies on the supplier’s disclosure of origin. The GIA’s analysis then allows the resulting polished to be matched with its source when it is graded.
That’s fine if a miner directly sends the goods to the GIA. But what happens when the diamonds have multiple sources? For example, a sightholder or tender house might buy De Beers goods and mix them with supply from other miners, and then send the parcel for analysis. In that case, the stones have multiple sources. As a result, the GIA report has been known to list up to seven possible origins of a polished stone in its report.
Sarine claims to have solved the problem by working only with miners willing to scan the diamond into its system at the mine site, thus enabling it to trace its journey from the start.
Demand driven
Sarine also asserts that it is approaching the challenge from a demand angle rather than a supply one, arguably in contrast to the other programs. It is working with retailers to build their sustainability programs from the bottom up. So, if a jeweler such as Boucheron, which announced its partnership with Sarine in January, requires a certain amount of traceable inventory for a collection, Sarine can point to its channels that extend back to the mine.
Of course, each traceability provider has different considerations, and offers different added value. De Beers and the GIA are relying on their powerful brands to provide assurances on supply.
But it does raise the question of what is driving the market for responsibly sourced goods. If it is demand, as Sarine claims it should be, the market is still in its infancy, growing at a gradual pace. The Russia crisis may have given demand for traceable goods an unexpected boost.
After all, the US sanctions are limited, leaving jewelers and dealers to decide whether they’re willing to buy polished diamonds that came from Russian rough but were cut elsewhere. It is up to the trade to empower them to make confident choices with robust and clear traceability programs.
Some US jewelers have already made their positions clear. Immediately after the invasion, Brilliant Earth announced on Twitter it had removed all diamonds of Russian origin from its site. If more follow suit, as one might expect the longer the war continues, retail demand for origin disclosure will increase. The supply-chain dynamic will also shift.
Sales continue
The sanctions do not prevent Alrosa from selling its diamonds. The bigger concern for its rough buyers relates to paying for the goods, since the Russian banking system was taken off the international transfer system, Swift. But an Alrosa auction took place last week, and goods were paid for via banks in Italy and the United Arab Emirates, market sources confirmed.
The result, therefore, is not cutting off nearly 30% of global supply, as many feared. That would create shortages in the market and drive rough prices up even further. Rather, if more US jewelers refuse Russian-origin goods, manufacturers will need to change their operations accordingly. They would need to divert those goods to centers and clients willing to buy them and keep the remaining diamonds for those implementing their own ethical ban. It would bifurcate the market, but the net effect on supply would probably be zero in the long run.
The retail quandary
The bigger test falls on retail jewelers whose programs rely on the high volume of diamonds that Alrosa provides.
Signet Jewelers, for example, is said to be the largest buyer of piqué (I2- to I3-clarity) diamonds in the market, requiring consistent stock for collections that go in display cabinets across its approximately 2,800 stores. It is unlikely to fill its requirements without Russian goods.
While Signet said it had suspended business interactions with Russian-owned entities since the start of the invasion — including Alrosa, of which it is a contracted client — the jeweler did not clarify whether it still sources polished from manufacturers whose rough comes from Russia.
A Signet spokesperson instead referred to the company’s Responsible Sourcing Protocol, which points to direct supply of rough, urging buyers to insist on disclosures further along the distribution chain. It seems the protocols would consider the source of the polished diamond to be Russian, regardless of where it was polished — as all industry traceability programs do.
Signet also encourages its suppliers only to do business with members of the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC), to which Alrosa still belongs, even though the miner resigned from the board. A revocation of Alrosa’s RJC membership, as some are calling for, would add another layer to its considerations, along with the rest of the industry’s.
Tiffany & Co. also has a decision to make. In 2019, it started disclosing the region of origin for all its engagement rings. It still lists on its website that most of its rough diamonds come from five countries — Botswana, Canada, Namibia, Russia and South Africa; in other words, De Beers and Alrosa, from whom its manufacturing unit buys. The jeweler faces the same dilemma as Signet for goods that are not polished in-house. Tiffany did not respond to this column’s request for clarification on its policy. Parent company LVMH has reportedly closed all of its retail operations in Russia.
The brands are left in a quandary. They need the supply, but cannot risk being called out on their environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. The potential backlash of being found out to be sourcing Russian-origin diamonds increases with the intensity of the fighting in Ukraine — especially if they remain cagey about their polished sourcing.
Inflection point
Of course, there are many more factors to consider: not least that Russian diamonds enable hundreds of thousands of jobs in India and elsewhere. That presents an ethical question to those calling for a blanket ban. Russian diamonds are part of an ecosystem upon which diamantaires and jewelers rely for their livelihood around the world — including in the US. Less supply to Signet could easily translate to lower sales, which affects all of its stakeholders, including employees. Then again, so would a consumer backlash.
The current crisis is an inflection point for the industry’s responsible-sourcing drive. It may even push the industry to stress the source of transformation over origin — as the US government has done. Maybe that needs to be debated.
Furthermore, it may push the industry to be more nuanced in its approach. For all the excellent work that has been done to bring the industry up to par on sustainability and responsible sourcing, perhaps it gets too bogged down in the technicalities of its due-diligence standards. As Brad Brooks-Rubin, the outspoken US adviser to the RJC and a former US State Department representative at the Kimberley Process, wrote in a blog post on LinkedIn, consumers will understand the dilemma if business leaders are honest.
It is indeed better to be forthright about one’s decision-making. It’s OK to disclose the dilemma. Consumers even appreciate the option to make their own choice, as Brooks-Rubin asserts. Transparency is good. The lack of clarity that is clouding the industry’s approach to Russian-origin goods will only create further uncertainty within the trade that will spill over to consumer confidence. That’s a crisis the industry can ill afford.
De Beers’ sales fell at its February trading session as sightholders deferred demand to later in the year amid uncertain market conditions.
The second sales cycle of 2023 grossed $495 million, a drop of 24% from last year’s equivalent period, the company reported Wednesday. Sales were, however, 9% higher than January’s $454 million.
“We know that sightholders planned more of their purchases for later in 2023, given the economic uncertainty at the time they were taking their planning decisions at the end of 2022,” said Al Cook, De Beers’ new CEO. “It is also encouraging to see some positive trends in end-client demand for diamond jewelry at the start of the year.”
The total includes the company’s February sight as well as auctions. The company raised prices of its smallest diamonds for the contract sale, but mostly maintained rates for larger stones after January’s price decline, customers told Rapaport News.
De Beers’ rough revenues have fallen 28% year on year to $949 million for the first two sales cycles of 2023, according to Rapaport calculations based on the company’s sight reports.
