The FTC instructs that the only approved terms that can be used to describe or promote lab-grown diamonds are: laboratory grown, laboratory created and created. “As any jewelry industry expert will tell you, these are two distinctly different types of products.” “There’s nothing wrong with using lab-grown stones as long as you’re disclosing their industrial origins, and never marketing them as somehow superior to natural diamonds,” Aysoy says. Aysoy’s Czarina, Elle et Lui and Celeste collections incorporate natural diamonds and her highly luxurious collections retail in London at Harvey Nichols and in Los Angeles at Just One Eye While Aysoy’s grandfather and father were natural diamond dealers, she works with LGD for some of her more affordably priced collections. "People deserve to know what a jewelry design is made of." Nadine Aysoy Jewelleryīesides potentially duping customers into buying a product that has been intentionally misrepresented, “Some LGD marketing may be hurting the business of natural diamond jewelry designers by causing people to buy LGDs instead of natural diamonds,” says London-based designer Nadine Aysoy. "Transparency about materials is paramount," she says. consumers to disclose the nature of lab-grown diamond jewelry in all communications. I still think this is an interesting suit because it does raise some issues about nomenclature.London-based jewelry designer Nadine Aysoy notes that jewelry manufacturers and designers owe it to. Not much has happened in their suit since January, according to online court records. I tried to contact “Diamond Review” last week, but have not heard back, but they are welcome to respond. UPDATE: In the comments, and in an email to me, Robert James of says the suit against him has been dropped and he was never served. Its listing on google says it has “the worlds largest selection of flawless lab-created diamond jewelry.” Its site, however, does use the word “simulant.” Will be watching this … The complaint against diamondreview (PDF) contains similar charges, aimed at comments from a member named “m987” on its diamondinfo forum.ĭiamond Nexus Labs has been controversial in the industry for a while – here are articles from a few years back from Idex and Rapaport. Plaintiff’s diamond simulants have been accepted for rating and grading by AIG, American International Gemologists. Plaintiff’s diamond simulant product, The World’s Most Technologically Advanced Gemstone®, is the near exact optical and physical match to natural mined diamond, it looks identical and wears identically, but the chemistry is different, it is not pure carbon. The gemstone is then coated with a proprietary substance that alters the optical and physical properties of the gemstone to make it more exactly match a natural diamonds properties.
Plaintiffs’ diamond simulant product had contained and continues to contain additional and differentiating elements from common cubic zirconium.
These assertions are completely false.”Ī linked lawsuit (PDF) against yourgemologist explains:ĭefendant has falsely asserted that Diamond Nexus Lab does “not have a product laboratory and they do not manufacture any products.”ĭefendant has falsely asserted that “the same cubic zirconia that Diamond Nexus sells for over $100.00 can be purchased on eBay for about $5.00.”ĭefendant has falsely asserted that Diamond Nexus Labs products are ordinary cubic zirconia and not diamond simulant products made from a variety of materials …. These attacks, found on sites like and assert that our products are nothing but CZ. I’m a little late on this, but it turns out that Diamond Nexus Labs is suing two Internet forums that have accused the company of selling “nothing but cubic zirconia.”Ī company statement claims that “we have endured unfounded attacks on the very make-up of our diamond simulants.
0 kommentar(er)
