Posted on 01/06/2007 7:44:37 PM PST by blam
Diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend
By Chris Hastings, Stephanie Plentl and Beth Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:29am GMT 07/01/2007
Diamonds have been synonymous with Hollywood glamour since Marilyn Monroe declared them to be a girl's best friend in the film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. But now a new generation of Hollywood stars is shunning the stones as a new film exposes the darker side of the international diamond trade.
Blood Diamond tells the story of forced-labour diamond mines
For the first time in the 79-year history of the Oscars, certain kinds of diamond will be absent from the annual prize-giving ceremony. Normally the awards, which will take place on February 25, are awash with sparkling stones, with some stars even choosing to wear them on their shoes.
But now many of the biggest names in Hollywood are asking agents and diamond experts to ensure they are not photographed wearing illicit diamonds.
The backlash against the stones has led to diamonds being dubbed the "new fur", as stars increasingly try to make sure that they are not wearing anything that might be regarded as unethical.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly, the stars of Blood Diamond, as well as Kayne West, the rap artist, the models Iman and Erin O'Connor – the face of Marks and Spencer – are leading the backlash. Blood Diamond, part of which was filmed in London's Hatton Garden diamond district, is set in civil war-ravaged Sierra Leone and tells the story of forced-labour diamond mining companies.
The success of the film, which has already opened in America and comes to UK cinemas at the end of the month, has led to an upsurge in demand for so-called conflict-free diamonds, which carry a certificate of confirmation that their trade is not connected with war, civil strife or human rights abuses.
Gaia Geddes, the jewellery editor at Harper's Bazaar, said: "You have the Oscars and Baftas coming up, and that's when the stars wear very big rocks. This year there will be a lot of focus on conflict-free diamonds and a lot of people will take a stand, just like they did with fur."
Connelly, 36, who plays a journalist in the movie, made a point of wearing "conflict-free" diamonds to the film's American premiere last month.
"I think what I got out of the film is a desire to be a more ethnical consumer," she said. "I did some research and there are companies like Bulgari, like Tiffany, that are striving to be clean and accountable and that provide written guarantees that their diamonds are conflict-free.
Iman pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers
"No one is saying boycott diamonds but [buyers] can be pro-active and go to their jewellers and say, 'Can you show me a certificate? Can you give me a verifiable warranty that these diamonds are conflict-free?'"
Jane Fonda, the double Oscar-winning actress and friend of the film's producer, Paula Weinstein, has also revealed how she has made sure she only wears conflict-free diamonds.
African tribes in conflict with the diamond industry are actively targeting the world's celebrities in a bid to win them over. Last year, Bushmen in the Kalahari in dispute with De Beers wrote an open letter in Variety to DiCaprio, seeking his support.
Eileen Kelly, the manager of Abiba, a jeweller in Hatton Garden, said: "Recently we have had more and more customers come into the shop because of publicity about the film and ask where the diamonds have come from. We can say that we do not sell conflict diamonds. For the past year we have quite clearly printed on our receipts that our diamonds are conflict-free."
The campaign against the diamond trade had been building up even before the release of Blood Diamond. In 2004 Iman, who is married to the singer David Bowie, pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers in protest at what she claimed was the company's eviction of tribespeople from their land in Botswana. In 2005, the actress Julie Christie joined a protest outside the Natural History Museum in support of the same tribesmen.
De Beers denies all the allegations levied against it in connection with diamonds. The company declined to comment last night, but a spokesman for the World Diamond Council, the representative body of the diamond industry, said: "We don't have any issue with the film. The important thing is that the movie is based in the past, in 1999, and the situation now is that the vast majority of conflict is over.
"The diamond industry contributes over $8 million (about £4.5 million) per year to local African economies, which helps to build schools, hospitals and provide employment."
A friend of mine did, and this ain`t no joke. He blew $20 G`s for an engagement ring, and the girl he bought it for if you can believe it rejected it because it "wasn`t big enough"..How`s that for being daddys spoiled little Princess? So he brought it back and bought a car instead. I told him thank God he didn`t give it to her otherwise he would have never gotten it back. It`s freggin` insane, laying out all that money for a freggin` rock! It`s the Pet rock scam times 10,000. "A Diamond is forever" Yeah, because you`ll be paying that thing off forever.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The girl rejected a $20K diamond -- and he still married her?! She must have been a real knockout! But whether she was or not, I'll bet dollars to dimes he regrets marrying her.
Actually, when you buy a diamond, your money isn't "going to some billionaire in South Africa" at all. It is going to the person you bought it from. And there isn't just one billionaire in South Africa who owns every diamond! Diamonds come from Russian and Canada and South Africa and even the good old US of A!
And no, Hollywood isn't the cause of women wanting diamonds; that credit goes back to a Medieval king ( a France one, I think, but perhaps an English one ) who gave his betrothed a diamond ring. American women have wanted and gotten diamond engagement rings long before movies were ever even thought of and long before the movie industry moved from N.Y.C. and Chicago to California.
Both men and women, from time immemorial have worn jewelry, most of it containing precious and semi-precious stones, from the start of recorded history. Diamonds were introduced somewhat later, but many, many centuries before America, let alone Hollywood, ever existed! Trying to blame Hollywood, for people's wanting to wear jewelry containing diamonds is patently ridiculous; not to mention completely erroneous.
I went to my favorite site, and searched for alexandrite jewelry. No luck. Perhaps they are getting as rare as hens teeth?
You ladies seem to know your jewelry, so let me ask you about the onslaught of 10K gold. I've even seen jewelry made from 5K! My mom told me years ago, that 18K was ideal, 24K was too soft, and 14K was acceptable. I avoid 10K like the plague, unless it's "mixed media". Same with sterling silver and cubic zirconia. Sure it looks pretty, but the resale value isn't worth my time. So, apart from giving 10K gold to a young girl, does it have a durable resale value?
I personally don't need anymore jewelry, but I'm looking towards the future. Yeah, I've got a full length ranch mink that belonged to my mom. I want to have it cleaned and reconditioned. Good luck finding a furrier in this neck of the woods...
Well, I'm off to bed. Thanks for any input you may have :)
So perhaps Hollywood didn't originate the idiotic idea, but they sure gave it a major boost. Do you realize that the movie "Diamonds Are a Girl's best friend" was little more than a feature length marketing gimmick?
And of course I realize that South African billionaires are not the only diamond barons in the world, but they are the major ones. If you cannot understand an obvious figure of speech, you are the slow learner.
As for "understanding women," if you think the key to a healthy relationship is to buy them off with something that is bound to lose its value as soon as a man-made version becomes economical, you still have a lot to learn, haven't you -- both about women *and* investing.
Chatham "grew" beryl, emerald, which was exactly like emeralds created in nature except better. Because there were fewer flaws, the softness of a natural emerald was an "8" whereas the lab created was closer to a "9" and looked the same under an electron microscope. No big deal. He did the same for rubies and sapphires, which are the same stone with different colorations. That was ok.
When he used a process for burnt carbon that created an identical diamond, I read that he was contacted and told that he had gone too far. His website kept saying that the diamonds would soon be on the market, but I never heard that they were.
The gem industries manipulation of poor countries' mineral rights, miners, cutters (who are paid nothing and are doing the real work in making a rock worth wearing) is under-reported, on purpose.
Interestingly, about 10 years ago, a high school girl working on a science project at her home in Bethesda, MD burnt carbon to the point that she created a superior industrial diamond with a hardness of "11"--not jewel grade but good enough to eliminate the industrial demand for rejected diamonds. She was not able to get a patent because her father worked for the NIH and her burner had been one that he had brought home from work, making it government property and her product, government property. Given the collusion between the government and diamond industry, I don't think that her discovery is going to see the light of day beyond her garage door.
If anyone doubts that diamond marketing is a big joke, just ask a jeweler why someone should buy a natural stone over a lab created one that looks the same under the microscope and passes the same GIA tests. Most "experts" can't tell the difference and only know the natural one because it has more flaws than the created one. The outrage and rump-covering are the tip-off's that diamonds are the world's biggest racket. The emperor doesn't wear new clothes--he wears diamonds.
That is some very hungry egos in Hollywood. Constantly they need to be fed.
To bad they don't know that adultery in the middle east is cause for death! They should all stay married because by saying it is okay to be married multiple times and not taking their vows seriously, a muslim may try the same thing and then be killed. Heaven forbid they be the instigators of anything so horrible.
As far as resale is concerned, unless your piece is from a very well know jeweler and NOT new, you will most probably get very little of its worth back. Estate/inherited pieces are a different matter.
Now, about your mother's mink coat......unless both you and she have taken excellent care of it ( and that DOES mean keeping it in cold storage, having it cleaned every so often ) it will NOT be usable at all. I don't know where you live, but if you have a Neiman's or a Saks store near you, they CAN and will send your coat off to be cleaned and reconditioned for you.
I hope I've been of some help. If you need more help, please FREEPmail me.
Maurice Tempelsman, Jackie O's married boyfriend, was, and maybe still is, one of the great diamond market-makers. It is a small cartel that makes the money shared by the Saudi Royals look like trickle-down economics by comparison.
The idea that exceedingly expensive diamond (and ONLY diamond) engagement and wedding rings are a MANDATORY custom is a fairly recent invention of De Beers.
I have a female friend and when I asked her if, say, I was asking someone to marry me and her favorite color was blue, and I got her a huge and expensive sapphire engagement ring instead of diamond, she reacted like I was suggesting using a plastic ring from a crackerjack box.
Do you really enjoy making yourself look foolish in public?
De Beers, which is a COMPANY and not a single person, has, for more than a century and 1/2, been the main source of diamonds and they aren't just in South Africa! And though Zimbabwe, which was Rhodesia, which was part of South Africa to begin with, had the biggest mines. That is where De Beers began.
The cost of a diamond and most other stones, is comprised of many different things; not the least of which are the cutting, the size, the clarity, and the color. Rarity and availability ( whether real of made-made/manipulated ) also enter the mix.
I am NOT a "slow learner" at all; however, it appears that you aren't a "learner" at all. LOL
You're the one who claimed to "not understand women" and no, you don't; I agree.
Giving a woman a present, no matter what it is, isn't "buying her off" at all.
Jewelry should not be looked at as an "investment"!
Fake diamonds will NEVER replace nor suborn the desire for the real thing, no matter how CHEAP or "good" they are.
Oh yes....I've also been happily married for just a few months less than 40 years. I think that I know, very well, what the keys to a healthy and happy relationship are; probably far better than you do! :-)
Your friend is more than a little bit behind the times. In recent years, it has become quite popular, in America, to have a diamond and another stone, or even another stone...such as a ruby or a sapphire as an engagement ring. This trend actually began when the then Lady Di got a HUGE sphere surrounded by very small diamonds, as an engagement ring. In England, it has been far more usual for an engagement ring to be a regular looking ring and NOT a diamond solitaire.
Trends come and go. And a BIG, expensive diamond engagement ring is NOT something all that "new". The 1930's saw rings that were glass doorknobs! In Paris, in the 1920s, some women gad diamond engagement rings with the stone being the size of a nickle. What is NEW, is that sometimes girls demand honking big stones, from guys who really can't afford them. And what is considered to be BIG in one area of the country, is not considered to be all that big in another.
If you'd like the titles of some reference material, I can give it you via FREEPmail. :-)
Good grief. I do understand the need to not support industries like this that are built on abject human misery, but I get SO sick of the Celebrity Cause Bandwagon.
Six months ago, these vacuous slugs would've thought nothing of buying a diamond no matter where it came from, so long as it salved some pathetic want of the moment. Now, because someone has spread the word in their joke of a world that it's a bad thing, they're all jumping on this latest bandwagon.
I'm sure their commitment will be about as genuine as their ecological convictions, illustrated by buying hybrid cars to park in their driveways while they ride in limos to the airport to board their private jets.
What a sickening lot they are.
MM
The only time I buy something in 10k is when it's an estate piece. I have a couple of things from the Art Deco era that are very pretty, and in 10k, but they're also valued for being antique too. But current 10k is well, icky.
To me, 18k is the prettiest, and if you ever go overseas, some countries have exquisite folk jewelry that is made from that mix. To me, the biggest thing about buying stones and jewelery is that....YOU CAN WEAR IT! WHOO HOO!
Heck, it ain't an investment to me, it's just another addition to the sparklies in my life :)
By your way of thinking that nice lake boat isn't worth anything either....you can't eat it either.
You are obviously uninformed. Most of the diamonds in this country are not worn by prositutes. Nearly every married woman in American wears one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.