Blacklight Responsive Diamonds

Mark Bronner Diamonds Blacklight Responsive DiamondsCertain diamonds have the ability to fluoresce a bright blue color in response to ultra violet light, which is also known as “black light”. This is due to the fact that about thirty percent of these precious gems contain an appropriate amount of Boron that allows them to emit this luminous glow as soon as the compound gets excited by the ultra violet lighting. The exact concentration of Boron present in that specific diamond determines the strength of the fluorescence. The two factors are linearly related, which means that level of radiance expressed by the diamonds changes according to the individual stone. Experts have classified the resulting fluorescence into the following five categories: very strong, strong, medium, faint and none.

 

While some consumers find appeal in this intriguing glow, others are skeptical of the diamond’s quality and color due to the added presence of Boron. The latter belief, however, is a misconception about this naturally occurring reaction. This misconception stems from the historical use of ultra violet light to sort out fake diamonds from real ones. However, what most people don’t know is that most diamonds reflect at least some amount of blue light in response to black light exposure. In fact, the GIA led research on the quality of fluorescing diamonds in 1997. The results confirmed that, despite the glow emitted by these diamonds under black light, the precious gems themselves do not have any inherent color defects or opacities. In fact, those diamonds categorized with strong or very strong fluorescence exhibited higher quality color than diamonds ranked in lower categories of fluorescence while in the table up position. In the table down position, there was no remarkable difference between gems with higher fluorescence versus those with lower fluorescence.

 

Despite the results from the GIA study, diamond buyers still tend to shy away from investing in the stones that respond to ultraviolet light. As a result jewelry merchants have established a separate pricing system for the fluorescing diamonds, one that takes the usual color and clarity of the diamond into account while adding on the stone’s fluorescence valuation. On the other hand, certain consumers are intrigued by this extra quality in diamonds and appreciate the subtle blues hues present in the fluorescing diamonds. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference as long as the precious gems are coming from a trusted and GIA certified vendor.

Diamonds & Instagram

Mark Bronner Diamonds InstagramMillennials (and even me, for that matter) are tired of reading about the industries they’re destroying and bearing the onus of failing markets. From mediocre fast food chains like Arby’s to the severely hurting realm of print media, society has laid the corpse of these businesses at the feet of overeducated, underpaid, debt-ridden young professionals.

The diamond industry, too, has been tossed on the pyre, as young adults have chosen not to spend as much on the precious gems as generations before them have. From the inflated prices to the inherent uselessness to the job prospects, young adults have decided that their money would be better spent elsewhere, either towards paying down loans or investing in their futures.

Of all the figurative death millennials have left in their wake, young adults are well known to shell out more than expected for experiences and moments — much more so than they are for items and trinkets. Meal kits, AirBNB, and gourmet snacks all serve as a testament to this.

And what’s an experience if it’s not shareable? On top of young adults wanting to “do” something, they want to be able to talk about it and take breath-taking pictures of it to put on their social media platforms. A quick search of hashtags like #FoodPorn or #AboutLastNight will make it clear quickly that what young people crave is a good time and priceless memories.

So for diamond and jewelry sellers, the key to reviving the industry is to stop selling items and start selling an experience, a lifestyle, and a persona — and where better to do that than on Instagram.

The Diamond Producers Association wants diamonds to feel more “approachable” and doff the old-timey concepts of marriage in favor of a modern, pop-culture friendly appearance. From their five-year campaign entitled “real is rare” to its warm embrace of such iconic images as Taylor Swift bathing in a tub brimming with diamond jewelry, the DPA understands that the name of the game at this point is relatability and experience.

Of course, that means rethinking the purpose of social media. In the early goings, corporations and sellers believed that they could just push ad after ad onto the platforms and draw attention that way, but as one could imagine, a company following that strategy would lose not only business but followers left and right. The DPA had outlined in its new plan that it intends to remain relevant and post images and graphics not always related to the sale of diamonds, but also to the cultural relevance of diamonds.

From Game of Thrones appearances to young love birds on exotic vacations, the Instagram page peddles an aesthetic and a look rather than an item anymore. As they moderators execute their five-year social media plan, we’ll see whether diamonds are able to find a second wind with young adults and make a second debut as a cornerstone of our culture.

Tiffany vs Costco

mark bronner diamonds tiffany vs costcoOn August 15, 2017, Tiffany Diamonds won a huge case against the bulk food distributor Costo. A US District court ruled in favor of Tiffany, who alleged that Costco had blatantly manufactured counterfeit rings and marketed them under the Tiffany name.

The luxury jewelry company filed their first suit in February 2013 shortly after Valentine’s Day, alleging that Costco had sold upwards of two thousand rings using Tiffany’s copyrighted name and logo as well as the company’s reputation as one of the finest jewelry designers and distributors in the world. Tiffany’s legal team alleged that Costco had used displays with the word “Tiffany” in print and that the sales associates called on the pathos of the Tiffany name as a part of their sales pitch of the diamond-laden jewelry to customers.

Costco, ever cavalier about the whole issue, argued in its defense that the word “Tiffany” was a generic enough word to describe jewelry that the company could claim no such copyright over the name. They drew a parallel between their own marketing and the use of words like Kleenex, Band Aid, and Xerox with a product, not a brand.

Presiding Judge Swain ruled against Costo in 2016.

In total, Tiffany has been awarded a grand total just shy of twenty million dollars in damages from Costco. Initially, the jury decided that five and a half million dollars would cover the damages that Costo inflicted on Tiffany. Subsequently, the judge chose to load on an additional eight and a quarter million dollars to the penalty Costo had to pay as punitive damages. Calling Costco’s defense ridiculous on its face, the judge added the punitive damages because the actions were intentional and harmful.

In a final blow, Judge Swain imposed triple damages totaling 11.1 million dollars plus interest, on top of the 8.25 million that the jury had settled on.

Costo will likely continue to market the same diamond rings in the future, but they have been thoroughly admonished to use clearer language, including clarifications like “Tiffany Style” rather than “Tiffany” as a stand alone adjective.

Copyrights have been a central focus of the US Supreme Court as of late, and Costco said it intends to appeal this particular case as high as it feasibly can. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled on two cases related to what can and cannot be copyrighted. In one case revolving around cheerleader’s uniforms, the court decided that stylistic features like chevrons can, in fact, be copyrighted, which was a huge blow to the knockoff industry and the leeway the Court has generally granted it. The other notably-controversial case dealt with whether racial epithets qualify as grounds for the US choosing to reject a copyright application. In a sweeping victory for the ACLU, the courts ruled that the US government was in no place to decide which words were “too inflammatory” to deny copyrights.

If this Tiffany v Costco case makes it way up the courts, we can expect to see the justices deliberate in a few years down the road.

The Cubs’ New Rings

mark bronner diamonds the cubs new ringsThe Chicago Cubs have a fancy new ring to display. Having recently won the World Series, the Cubs have earned themselves custom rings — and the designers pulled no punches after the team finally broke a 108 World Series drought.

The rings boast 214 diamonds each and three carats of rubies for the classic red in their logo. Jostens, the design agency in charge of the rings, confirmed in a press release the exact specs of the prizes. The rings are made of 14 carat white gold and designed to commemorate the players, Wrigley field, and the legend that sent the Cubs on their drought in the first place. The press release states, “Overall, the ring contains 214 diamonds at 5.5 karats, 3 karats of genuine red rubies and 2.5 karats of genuine sapphires.”
In all, the team will hand out 1,908 rings to its players, administrators, investors, and board members. Players have already commented that they love the ring and all its bling and sentimentality, although it is awkward to wear. As fun as all the celebrating has been, the Cubs say they’re ready to get to work on earning another one.