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."
BRAVA....great attitude and great post! :-)
Did you notice that with a few noble exceptions, the people bashing you and also engaging in talk of luxury conspicuous consumption items like gems and furs are women?
I have far more respect for a 'pro' than I do for someone offers long-term leases on their genitals and pretty face as a socially appropriate cover for their cupidity.
But it IS a ruse.
That you choose to either ignore that fact because you like diamonds or buy into the propaganda doesn't mean it's not a ruse NOR is it an insult.
It's like buying the insurance from rental car agencies when your VISA agreement and your own car insurance will cover your damages. If you want it, that's fine for you. But it's no less a ruse.
Ruse is a description of the situation not a moral or intellectual judgment of you in particular. That you (and the other women defending the myths) are taking Russ to task just shows that he and others in this thread have hit on an uncomfortable (or inconvenient) truth ;P
Disregarding a "civil war", there have been and are conflicts concerned with mining that stone..At least from what I've understood..
I.E, from a 2002 GEM article
"At Mererani, South African Gem (Afgem) is accused of human rights abuses and attempting to monopolise tanzanite mining.
Miners have been shot dead or chased by dogs. Afgem says it is defending its interests against trespassers. It certifies the tanzanire it sells to guarantee the gems' authenticity. Although Minerals and Energy Minister Maokola-Majogo has told Afgem to stop doing so, it continues the practise, claiming it is an effective market strategy."
sw
I do so love the "Moisonnite" (sp), and was wondering if it was worth the price? I love the "fire"..
sw
Long, long ago, designers made "deals" with Queens, then with socialites, and later on stage actresses. People tried to copy the styles, as best they could and later, bought knockoffs. The Empress Eugenie made a certain style of hat famous, the then Prince of Wales ( Queen Elizabeth II uncle ) influenced what men wore, all over the world, and when people couldn't afford to buy the same kind of clothes of hats or jewels, they copied hair styles.
But yes, what you said about today is true; especially how absolutely UGLY so many of the clothes are!
Is Moisssanite "worth" the price? How should I know? Was your car worth the price you paid? Your house? What is it that "fire" worth to you personally?
That's not a cop out. Anything is "worth" the price agreed to by a willing buyer and seller. I think it's horrendously overpriced and wouldn't buy it myself for several reasons. If it's "flash for the cash" you're after there's no way to beat cubic zirconia. It's the best diamond simulant to date and has plenty of dispersion/"fire" (which is one way I can tell it from diamond). You can get a beauty for under $10.
The feeling is mutual...I'm more than delighted that my husband is nothing at all like you, but then, if he were, I would never have married him! LOL
You can sell diamond jewelry to many different outlets and if the piece is by a well known craftsman/store and/or has an interesting provenance, you WILL get more for it than what you bought it for. But that means that the piece you are selling is not new.
Nope, diamonds ( or any other gem stones ) are not the equivalent of a "pet rock".
"Please learn FR's posting rules and then abide by them."
"The feeling is mutual...I'm more than delighted that my husband is nothing at all like you, but then, if he were, I would never have married him! LOL"
Oh, so it's OK for you but not me? You tell me to "abide by the rules," then you go ahead and say the same thing back to me? Is that a double standard because you're a woman and I'm a man?
I suggest you find some ditzy women's site where you can bash guys who don't fall for the diamond ruse. Maybe "Teen Girl" or some such thing.
And that little "LOL" you add after your insults really shows your mentality. What the hell does it mean? "Lots of laughs"? I guess you really crack yourself up, eh.
If debeers let them all hit the market we would be paving our driveways with them. Diamonds are just shiny gravel.
Tanzanite is also alleged to be controlled by cabals with ties to terrorism. Haven't researched it, though!
Yes, it's pricey, that's why I wanted YOUR expert opinion. So now, I'll just wait for Home shopping to advertise their cool CZ earrings and go for it! Thanks, sw
The color change was not "blinding" and what turned me off the stone, was the color. I liked the greeny color well enough, but hated the change. And since I bought the ring prior to your date of when "good" synthetics and heated/treated stones came on the market, neither of those things would apply to that stone.
My old family jeweler, who did the family's appraisals, was also a certified gemologist.
I do know about the labs you mentioned. I have a friend who took classes ( I don't remember where now, but she did get certified ) and caught Tiffany in a fraud, because of what she knew. She had taken a piece into them to be fixed, and someone removed the main diamond from her piece and replaced it with a junky stone. And yes, they DID make good on it, when she complained!
Yes, I noticed that.
You have been denigrating women since you began to post on this thread. You have engaged in behavior which is against FR's posting rules.
I haven't impugned nor denigrated men; not once. OTOH, it appears that you are incapable of posting without hurling childish insults about.
I suggest that YOU go find some other site to post to...I'm staying right here on FR!
You claim I used profanity, but I don't recall any such thing. Please cite a post number where I used profanity, or quit lying about me.
And you claim that I have been "denigrating women" on this thread. Are you implying that I must accept baloney as fact when it comes from a woman? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
It seems that women are much more likely than men to fall for the diamond ruse. That's no surprise, considering that the original ruse was to convince women that their man's love for them is measured by the cost of a diamond. Since men are the direct victims of this ruse, they are naturally less likely to fall for it. But women are the victims too when they miss out on a chance to invest in a home due to the cost of a diamond, for example.
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.